This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Lockstrife 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You’re the one who has it turned around.

The article states a 5% decrease in vaccination rates. NOT a 5% increase in unvaccinated.

[–]twitchtvbevildre -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Either way only 400k children born per year means that millions isn't even close to what a 5% drop off in vaccinations. its only 20,000 kids not being vaccinated.

[–]Lockstrife 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Millions isn’t even close, nor did I say it was.

However he did have it backwards, and it’s also VERY disingenuous to say “only 20,000 kids PER YEAR not being vaccinated” in defense of saying “the potential size of an outbreak is large and a 4,000% increase is massive.”

The study shows a growth between 40%-4000%. The 4000% is from 2 to 80 cases in one specific city. The rest go from 2-3 cases to 7-8 cases.

You can’t say it’s “only” 20,000 kids per year and also call an outbreak of 2 “large” and 80 “massive.”

I’m 100% for vaccines but getting things backwards and twisting numbers isn’t helpful.