Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
That is not a satisfactory answer. People cite these statistics as evidence, but they are only an indicator because they are not very accurate.
And when you then take inaccurate figures and then compare with non-compatible foreign data, those figures become extremely misleading.
Still, Andrew, I suppose that as long as it supports your take on things, that's OK as far as you are concerned.
|
I'm afraid you're demonstrating your lack of subject knowledge. As I said, data collection is never 100% perfect. That's not unique to this particular data set. So not being 100% perfect is not a good reason to ignore it nor to not use it to make international comparisons, providing we understand how different data collection methods might impact different data sets.
Dismissing this information as "not very accurate" is simply wrong. To do so for obvious party political reasons is disappointing.
---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx
Yep, that's pretty much how the WHO worked. Smallpox eradication worked because of;
- No asymptomatic carriers
- People REALLY didn't want to get Smallpox to vaccination take up was close to 100% when needed
- There are no animal carriers and the virus dies quickly when not inside a person
- The vaccine was easy to administer (no injections)
- The virus is pretty stable genetically so no new exciting variants popped up over time
- A global effort was in place with vaccines being manufactured by local suppliers
Interesting. Thank you for all your most informative threads on this thread and the Brexit one.
Polio hopefully is going the same way for the same reasons. There were only 5 wild cases noted globally last year |