Notice how you had to pick ONE year to create that 800,000-500,000 trend drop? How come it rose from 400k to 800k between the 20s and 50s? If we used that trend rate it would be SKYROCKETING now. That is why we use the average of 500k. It is not just happenstance that it dropped to a few hundred cases in a handful of years. Case rate, not death rate is what matters.
The statement that most cases occur in vaxed people is also false. In recent outbreaks over 90% of cases were unvaccinated.
Yes, which year you choose matters, but this cuts both ways. The key is the trend rate from 1860-1960 - cases declined by 97% WITHOUT the vaccine. Deaths are more reliable than cases, which are subject to much error. The key point is that statistics are both fluctuating and often unreliable, but then that argument cuts both ways, as the ONLY case to claim that the vaccine is responsible for the decline in cases are the statistics themselves. The CDC and NIH can't have it both ways.
Thats incorrect. Stats are qualitative as well as quantitative and measles case rates did NOT decline 97% between 1860 and 1960. First, solid data before the 20th century is hard to get. From 1910 forward measles cases were actually trending slightly UP. The drop in cases to near 0 in 10 years following the advent of the vaccine was precipitous and there has been no recurrence. It is unprecedented for a chronic disease (measles a constant threat for over 2000 years) to do so without a vaccine.
Scarlet fever levels declined without a vaccine. I would suggest you publish your own presentation on statistics you just assert here. Statistics are never that reliable. I've used ones that were available officially. Yes, they are open to interpretation, but the official line is not the only one.
Point well taken.
pleromicproductions 2 years ago
Notice how you had to pick ONE year to create that 800,000-500,000 trend drop? How come it rose from 400k to 800k between the 20s and 50s? If we used that trend rate it would be SKYROCKETING now. That is why we use the average of 500k. It is not just happenstance that it dropped to a few hundred cases in a handful of years. Case rate, not death rate is what matters.
The statement that most cases occur in vaxed people is also false. In recent outbreaks over 90% of cases were unvaccinated.
batigol47 2 years ago 5
Yes, which year you choose matters, but this cuts both ways. The key is the trend rate from 1860-1960 - cases declined by 97% WITHOUT the vaccine. Deaths are more reliable than cases, which are subject to much error. The key point is that statistics are both fluctuating and often unreliable, but then that argument cuts both ways, as the ONLY case to claim that the vaccine is responsible for the decline in cases are the statistics themselves. The CDC and NIH can't have it both ways.
pleromicproductions 2 years ago
Thats incorrect. Stats are qualitative as well as quantitative and measles case rates did NOT decline 97% between 1860 and 1960. First, solid data before the 20th century is hard to get. From 1910 forward measles cases were actually trending slightly UP. The drop in cases to near 0 in 10 years following the advent of the vaccine was precipitous and there has been no recurrence. It is unprecedented for a chronic disease (measles a constant threat for over 2000 years) to do so without a vaccine.
batigol47 2 years ago 4
Scarlet fever levels declined without a vaccine. I would suggest you publish your own presentation on statistics you just assert here. Statistics are never that reliable. I've used ones that were available officially. Yes, they are open to interpretation, but the official line is not the only one.
pleromicproductions 2 years ago