Hard News: Sunday newspaper prints informative and well-researched story
194 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
no worries reece, definitely some of my opinions are full of shit but i must say PA provides me with a jolly healthy enema once and a while.
-
anything that reduces the frequency of a behaviour is by definition punishment.
would you also say that applies to positive behaviours as well? I guess for example if people decide to take advantage of a persons good nature that in a way they are being punished for their naivete and the good natured behaviours may decrease and/or become selective.
-
yes for sure. regardless of the desirability or 'positivity' of the behaviour. punishers reduce future likelihood of recurrance, reinforcers increase their likelihood. the +ve / -ve just relates to whether a stimulus is being introduced or withdrawn.
so taking advantage of a person's good nature, if they found out they were being taken advantage of, could be considered:1) positive punishment from the pov of that person feeling hurt, used etc, ie. the addition of an aversive stimulus
2) negative punishment from pov of that person's sense of trust or friendship being destroyed, ie. removal of appetitive stimuli
that's how the behavioural theory goes anyway. to some extent it's a matter of how you frame the stimuli involved. for example giving a food reward to a hungry subject (assuming they don't have food phobias) can be seen as the addition of an appetitive stimulus or the removal of an aversive stimulus (hunger). it goes on and on...
-
Ahhhh is that why my cousin boasts about getting thrown out of bars.....
-
and why are people so anti cretins? all the kiwis that over there say they're really nice
That would be 'Cretans' for the inhabitants of Crete.
Every now and then I like to justify my fully paid up membership of Pedants Anonymous.
-
From the not-entirely-serious paper linked to by Stephen:
100% used ketamine on a daily basis
Er, what?
-
I'll see your pedantry and raise you some know-it-allism
cretin
n. mentally and physically deficient person, generally a large- headed dwarf, whose condition is due to deficient thyroid secretion. cretinous, a. cretinism, n.
© From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.
Helicon Publishing LTD 2007. -
Let's just say that paper may not be exactly what it seems...
-
He's been all over the web on the same issue, you have to wonder where did he find the time?
That said, he has just been very gracious over at the Kiwiblog Hustle for Russell thread.
-
isn't cretin the stuff hair and fingernails are made of? don't they put lots of cretin in fancy shampoo and stuff?
-
cretin
n. mentally and physically deficient person, generally a large- headed dwarf, whose condition is due to deficient thyroid secretion. cretinous, a. cretinism, n.
© From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.
Helicon Publishing LTD 2007."1-2-3-4 cretins wanna hop some more"
Ramones - 1977
-
Not toasted bits of bread in soup?
-
maybe its the bits of fingernail and hair in soup?
-
maybe its the bits of fingernail and hair in soup?
nah it's the cretins that put that stuff in there.
-
isn't it some sort of muscle building supplement?
-
Then there's Cretin 2000, which never works on your hair the way you hope it will.
-
isn't it cretins that put supplements in their muscles, to make up for mental and physical deficiencies?
-
actually if you saw that doco the other night, The Man Whose Arms Exploded (how's that for a high-brow title) - he looked like he'd been putting crouton in his muscles, by the sackful.
-
Ah celebrity mugshots - an artform for our time. That's one hell of a fucking shirt too.
-
ron,
In response to the assertion that between 2001 and roll-out, there was a massive fall in deaths and case numbers, James asked "I assume you're talking about only the specific strain, and that you conviently chose 2001 because it makes the figures look better?"
Well, the MOH admits that 2001 was when the epidemic peaked, but I can confirm that the figures relate to the epidemic strain. I would've thought that such a massive fall in disease numbers was something to crow about.
James also claimed that there "are hundreds not hospitalised". I'm not sure what figures he's referring to but there were only 161 cases of meningococcal disease last year. Of these, less than 100 will have been caused by the epidemic strain. The reference to hundreds is therefore puzzling. Moreover, there is evidence that the rate of hospitalisation among vaxed kids is about the same as that among non-vaxed kids. So the cost of treating the two is roughly the same.
Finally, James says that the "numbers for MeNZB are a bit harder to calculate". Whether he tried to work out the figures is not clear.
Only one or two under 20 year olds die of the epidemic strain each year (since 2001). Let's be generous and say that the average number of lives saved by the vaccine is 2 each year. Let's also be generous and say the effects of MeNZB last for 5 years. This seems unlikely given that babies are given a fourth shot to try to boost their immune systems. Why three shots don't confer sufficient protection has never been explained. There have also been children who have caught the disease within 12 months of being fully vaxed. So 5 (years) times 2 (deaths) equals 10 lives saved. At a cost of more than $200 million, that's more than $20 million per life. But the real cost is likely to be greater, given that my assumptions are generous.
James's response is that "we'll never really know for sure if it was the right call". Actually, I think we do know. But some people prefer to ignore the evidence. It's called intellectual dishonesty. "I think I could do with putting some time into some other things". I know what you mean.
-
Ah celebrity mugshots - an artform for our time.
It looks as though he could do with a whole lot of keratin, but may have gotten into the ketamine instead.
-
cretin
-
ron, you're sounding a bit like Ron Law.
-
Dear Ron,
Thanks for your charming and patronising reply.I'm not sure what figures he's referring to but there were only 161 cases of meningococcal disease last year.
There were 113 strain cases in 2005, and 259 in 2003, so it's not a great stretch to see how over several years there could be a savings of hundreds. If there were indeed fewer than 100 strain cases last year, then there will indeed have been a savings of hundreds.
there is evidence that the rate of hospitalisation among vaxed kids is about the same as that among non-vaxed kids.
That's an entirely useless, pointless, and misleading statistic. The vaccine doesn't aim to prevent hospitalisation, but aims to prevent infection.
And as for your cost calculation. A few points.
1. While the vaccine is only given to under 20s (most of the cases), the older people (most of the deaths) have to catch it off someone. So if you reduce the number of cases, then the chances of the old people catching it and dying are lower. So using only lives under 20 saved is misleading.
2. You calculate only a cost per life saved (and then only young lives). However, there are other savings relating to non-hospitalisations and all sorts of other things. That's the bit that's hard to calculate.Actually, I think we do know. But some people prefer to ignore the evidence. It's called intellectual dishonesty.
Talking about yourself in the third person. Nice.
-
hmm ron, no comments on the late ross f's assertions... what do you think about those i wonder?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.