Started By
Message

re: Effectiveness of the Flu Vaccine

Posted on 1/8/14 at 3:01 pm to
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28703 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 3:01 pm to
quote:

Saying you are 3 time more likely to catch the flue without the vaccine will also mislead people.
But that is exactly what the numbers mean. It's not misleading at all.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but you should study statistics and probabilities a little bit.
Posted by eelsuee
2B+!2B
Member since Oct 2004
4503 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 4:15 pm to
quote:

I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but you should study statistics and probabilities a little bit.
I have taken graduate level classes on this topic that I highly doubt you ever even have the prereqs for. My problem in the beginning of this thread was reading comprehension (I misread something). You said my 10% percent number was a misrepresentation, which it wasn't. I said the factor of three would mislead people because saying three times more likely to get the flu SOUNDS a lot worse to most people than the reality of catching the flu 1 time more every ten years.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28703 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 4:53 pm to
quote:

I have taken graduate level classes on this topic
Then I don't see how you could possibly think you are correctly representing the data.
quote:

I said the factor of three would mislead people because saying three times more likely to get the flu SOUNDS a lot worse to most people than the reality of catching the flu 1 time more every ten years.
If you think that is misleading, then you must think all stats of this nature are misleading, because that is a very common and well-understood way to state the actual results.


An example using your representation:

You have a 1% chance of contracting AIDS. Getting a mythical AIDS vaccine reduces your chances to 0.01%. That is less than a 1% improvement in your chance of avoiding AIDS. That doesn't sound impressive, or even worth it, because it is a misrepresentation of the data.



An example using a representation that means something and accurately represents the data:

You have a 1% chance of contracting AIDS. Getting a mythical AIDS vaccine reduces your chances to 0.01%. That is a 99% improvement, or, that increases your chance of avoiding AIDS by 100 fold.
Posted by NHTIGER
Central New Hampshire
Member since Nov 2003
16188 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 5:55 pm to
Every year the debate rages on concerning the effectiveness of flu shots. Numbers are quoted, theories are set forth and personal anecdotes abound.

And what it always comes down to is this very deep and complex choice:


Get one ....or don't get one.

Posted by League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
10340 posts
Posted on 1/8/14 at 6:42 pm to
quote:

100% of the people who got the flu shot (my wife and daughter) got the flu. Conversely, 100% of the people who did not get the flu shot (me) did not get the flu

This

Of the 10 members of my immediate family, the one that got the flu was required to get a flu shot (hospital employee). The other 9, including a few school teachers, have not
Posted by Big Scrub TX
Member since Dec 2013
33357 posts
Posted on 1/9/14 at 12:07 am to
quote:

Saying you are 3 time more likely to catch the flue without the vaccine will also mislead people


Sorry, but it's not misleading at all. It is a very fair and accurate description. Quoting 10 percentage points in absolute terms like you did instead of converting to a % change is VERY misleading, however.

I'm not sure what your problem is or what your angle is in this thread, but you have come off in this thread like an ignorant jerk.
Posted by eelsuee
2B+!2B
Member since Oct 2004
4503 posts
Posted on 1/9/14 at 10:04 am to
quote:

you have come off in this thread like an ignorant jerk
Wow, I just read your post history and I will take that as a compliment coming from your dumbass.

BTW, good job cutting off my quote where I said SOUNDS (and stressed it) worse to most people. When I said 10%, I clearly said for AVOIDING the flu. I also acknowledged that it is relative which is why I changed the description to include years. That puts it in terms that aren't misleading and anyone (even those terrible at math) can understand.

Also, if you had ever done a risk analysis in your life, you would understand why my description (once per 10 years) is often times more useful than the relative numbers.
This post was edited on 1/9/14 at 10:05 am
Posted by Big Scrub TX
Member since Dec 2013
33357 posts
Posted on 1/9/14 at 10:10 pm to
quote:

BTW, good job cutting off my quote where I said SOUNDS (and stressed it) worse to most people. When I said 10%, I clearly said for AVOIDING the flu. I also acknowledged that it is relative which is why I changed the description to include years. That puts it in terms that aren't misleading and anyone (even those terrible at math) can understand.

Also, if you had ever done a risk analysis in your life, you would understand why my description (once per 10 years) is often times more useful than the relative numbers.


Don't know what any of this means. What I do know is you have been pig-headed in this thread. Getting a flu shot is a great idea and it substantially lowers one's iterative risk of contracting the flu in any given year.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram