Ohhh, the horror, OMG, the humanity!!! Ridiculously advertised numbers used as scare tactics...

a reply to: threeeyesopen

The point to this thread was not merely in response to another thread, but far moreso with regards to the media throwing numbers at the public designed to spur a spending frenzy on vaccines. Vaccines against things about if not less probable happening as dying in a plane crash.

The "response to another thread" you believe you noticed, was minor compared to every single time I see a report attempting to "baffle them with bulsh$t" using numbers that most people are going to find scary.

This is the rant forum, it is something that annoys the living crap out of me, so I ranted.




-NF

a reply to: nullafides

I did read it to come to an understanding of your rant...


I didn't say what I said to offend, I was trying, poorly, to be lighthearted.


Apologies, & I completely get that these stats are fearmongering techniques.

a reply to: eisegesis

While not being a sheep skinned mathematician myself, in my technical use of calculators (again, not a mathematician, if I was I'd probably do the math without the tool....) my understanding of a result ending in E-X typically means the number is far too long to display given the capabilities of the calculator.


Again, not a mathematician. But able to determine when something is, or is not, a threat to my health.



-NF

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well, thank you....and my apologies for responding as such. Written communication, especially in today's day and age, is easily misinterpreted.



Unlike a few folks here, I'm glad you got the gist of my rant....


Cheers!


-NF

a reply to: Serdgiam

Thank you for explaining what I made a feeble attempt to do myself



G'night



-NF

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Fair enough. However, even if I had been correct, a less than 2% chance of something to be afraid of is not something I'm going to be horribly afraid of. Let alone run out to buy a vaccine that is (in the case of both influenza and the HPV scare only effective against certain stains...which they are loathe to actually explain in larger than very very very fine print) little better than buying into the state lottery in hoping for a preventative cure....



-NF

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA



That it does my friend, that it does.


-NF

a reply to: pheonix358



All I can say is...

THANK YOU FOR GETTING MY POINT!!! And understanding the examples I gave to explain my viewpoint.

Many folks here chose to challenge the pure mathematics which were off by a few thousands of a decimal place.
I see this as a meager and small minded way to attack, rather than actually digest the statements as a whole. To actually comprehend.

I guess attacking is just easier than understanding. Religion, economics, and ideology have proven this time and time again.


-NF

a reply to: nullafides

When taken as presented, your math is actually correct.

1.428571428571429e-6 = 0.0000014285 without rounding

Perhaps incorrect assumptions were made from that, but the numbers are accurate.

Honestly though, I think these numbers have a good chance of changing rather dramatically in the future. There seems to be a real strong focus on communicable diseases.

The medical industry certainly does stand to profit more from perpetuating illness than curing people. Of course, this is only when measured in bank accounts, which might just be one of the least reliable indicators of actual value for society or individuals.

a reply to: Serdgiam


I see your point.

I for one just get highly annoyed with half truths. Not telling people what the *likelyhood* of a death from these issues is. Not giving more than "OMG, SO many deaths!!!"


That's what annoys the crap out of me...



-NF