Russia is going to destroy the West

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
28,050
Points
113
Moscow's measles misinformation
Cases of the measles are on the rise pretty much everywhere you look.

As of this week, the United States has already had more confirmed cases — 465 — in 2019 than it did in all of last year. It is well on its way to surpassing the 667 cases reported in 2014, the year with the most this century.

The largest outbreak is in New York City, where officials declared a public health emergency yesterday that will see mandatory vaccination in some neighbourhoods, but there are also significant clusters in Michigan, California, and 16 other states.

Health Canada's latest report lists 28 confirmed cases nationwide as of March 23, but that doesn't include newer outbreaks in Ottawa, Montreal and on Vancouver Island.

Australia, with 92 confirmed cases, has almost surpassed its 2018 total. Hong Kong, with 61 cases, already has.

There are reports of galloping measles outbreaks in New Zealand and Bulgaria.

The number of cases in places where the vaccine is readily available pales in comparison to those countries where immunization rates remain low due to conflict or poverty.

Ukraine suffered 64,000 confirmed cases last year, according to the World Health Organization. India had 63,000, while Madagascar had 59,000, Pakistan 34,000 and the Philippines 19,000.

And incidents of the disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Yemen, where reliable information is hard to come by, may have been even higher, it says.

In the West, much of the discussion about the rising rate of measles has been focused on anti-vaxxers, or their more indecisive cousins, politely called the vaccine hesitant.

But there are indications that another force might be driving the debate over vaccines — Russian bots and trolls.

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health last fall examined close to 1.8 million tweets sent between 2014 and 2017, and concluded that the preponderance of vaccine content — both for and against immunization — was coming from Russian-controlled accounts.

This "weaponization" of information about health was part of a wider effort to spread discordand erode trust, say the researchers. It may have been more successful than efforts aimed at the 2016 U.S. elections — the study found that 93 per cent of all vaccine tweets appeared to be coming from malicious, automated accounts.

There are also reports that Russian disinformation played a significant role in Europe's 2018 measles outbreak, which sickened 82,000 people and killed 72, with anti-vaccine messages contributing to a marked decline in immunization in southern and eastern countries.

If so, it wouldn't be the first time that a Russian government promoted false information about a health crisis. Back in the mid-1980s, the Soviets mounted Operation Infektion, a concerted effort to spread false news stories suggesting that the HIV virus had been secretly created by the U.S. government to target black and gay people. It worked well enough that a poll in the early 2000s suggested almost a quarter of African-Americans believed that AIDS originated in a government lab.

Social media platforms like Pinterest and Facebook have recently begun to clamp down on anti-vaccine content. But rising concerns about false foreign accounts are likely to fuel calls for government regulations.

A new white paper about "Online Harms," published this month by the U.K. Home Office and Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, justifies its call for tough, new internet rules by citing an Oxford University study that found evidence of "organized social media manipulation" in 48 countries in 2018.

"The tolerance of conflicting views and ideas are core facets of our democracy. However, these are inherently vulnerable to the efforts of a few to manipulate and confuse the information environment for nefarious purposes, including undermining trust," says the discussion paper, identifying Russia as a "major source" of the disinformation.

The U.K. government is talking about mandating social media companies to flag automated accounts and make unreliable content less visible to users as part of a new corporate "duty of care" to be enforced with fines and other legal punishments.

But as this blog points out, it's unclear what the government intends to do about all the vaccine misinformation that is being spread by people who sincerely believe that Dr. Google is more reliable than decades of peer-reviewed science.

Russian bots are surely a problem, but the Vaccine Confidence Project that tracks immunization scares and rumours still ranks the St. Petersburg troll farms as the third-biggest threat to vaccine uptake, behind bad science and the many people who capitalize on disbelief by flogging anti-vaxxer books, services and potions.​
 
Measles is no big deal I had it when I was 5 years old and so did 95% of the child population. There was no vaccine in those days. I also caught, mumps, chickenpox and german measles and recovered from all these infections unscathed.

All the kids in the school went through the same series of infections and I never had wind of anyone dying or being disabled as a result.

The idea that measles can be weaponised is just plain ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Found and article that confirms what I have known all along. As usual it is much ado about nothing and the the media sensationalizes things to create clickbait and people like you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

https://2020science.org/2015/02/03/risk-dying-catch-measles/

If you catch measles, what are your chances of dying?

When I was a kid, measles was one of those things you were expected to catch. I had it when I was five, and must confess, I don’t remember much about the experience. I do remember being confined to bed. And I also remember being told that measles could cause blindness – as a budding reader, this scared me. But I don’t recall anyone hinting at anything worse. If my parents were worried, they didn’t show it. And I’d certainly never heard of kids who had died – even in playground rumors.

So as the current outbreak of measles in the US continues to spread, I’ve been intrigued by statements that the disease has a mortality rate of somewhere between one and three young children per thousand infected.

Of course I know as a public health academic that measles is highly infectious and can cause severe harm – even death. But there was a dissonance between what I was reading and what I felt was correct. Surely if one out of every few hundred kids died as a result of measles as I was growing up, I’d have got wind of it?

The mortality rate of around 1 in 1000 though comes with a sound provenance. It’s there in black and white on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) web pages:

“For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it”​
A 2004 review in the Journal of Infectious Diseases provides further insight. Using CDC data on reported measles cases in the US between 1989 and 2000,Orenstein, Perry and Halsey indicated that approximately three children under the age of five died for every thousand that caught measles, and that the overall mortality rate for all ages was also around 3 per thousand people infected – the table below gives the data they used in deaths per thousand cases.

Measles-mortality-rates-in-the-US-1987-2000.png

MEASLES MORTALITY RATES IN THE US 1987 – 2000


This seems pretty convincing – maybe measles is more dangerous than we used to think back in the 70’s.

But there’s a catch.

The CDC dataset that Orenstein, Perry and Halsey used specifically refers to reported cases of measles. The derived mortality rate is for cases that are serious enough to have been flagged and logged by the agency. The question then becomes, how many cases occurred that weren’t reported, and how (if at all) do these alter the estimated mortality rate?

In a 2004 review entitled “Measles Eradication in the United States” (an optimistic title, in the light of current events), Orenstein, Papania and Warton make the point that not every case of measles in the US is reported, or at least it wasn’t, when the disease was more common.

According to their paper, from 1956 to 1960, there were an average of 450 measles-related deaths reported each year in the US, or approximately 1 death per 1000 reported cases. At the time though, it was estimated that more than 90% of Americans had been infected by measles by the age of 15 – equivalent to roughly 4 million children and teens per year. (Langmuir, A.D. (1962), Medical Importance of Measles. Am J Dis Child 103(3):224-226.)

These data suggest that the chances of dying from measles in the US in the late 1950’s was probably closer to 1 in 10,000.

Accounting for non-reported cases that led to death, and some uncertainty in the numbers, the mortality rate is realistically likely to be around one in a few thousand. But based on the data, it’s not likely to be as high the one or two deaths per 1,000 that’s being widely cited.

That shouldn’t detract from how important it is to prevent measles, and especially to protect young children, the elderly and other susceptible groups from infection. This is not a disease to be dismissed or taken lightly. It still kills nearly 150,000 people a year around the world according to the World Health Organization. It is highly infectious. And for communities to be adequately protected, there need to be high levels of immunization.

Yet from the available evidence, claiming that one or two children out of every 1,000 infected in the current US outbreak will die seems far fetched.

Sadly, using this mortality rate to hammer home the importance of getting kids vaccinated could well backfire. Like myself, many parents from my generation haven’t seen evidence for such a high chance of dying from the disease. And to use data that not only feel wrong, but are not backed up with evidence, only serves to undermines trust in public health experts.

Anti-vaccine proponents are smart enough to realize this. Each time the data on infectious diseases and risk are spun beyond their legitimate bounds, anti-vaccine proponents are given a helping hand in winning the hearts and minds of concerned parents.

Instead, public health experts and their advocates need to remain true to the data that support their message. Granted they won’t always be clear and compelling. But this should never be an excuse to spin the data to fit the story.

Ironically, for many people it’s not the numbers that count when it comes to making decisions over whether to vaccinate or not, so much as who to trust. But in deciding whom to place that trust in, numbers – and how they are used – can be very important indeed.

Update Feb 4 2015: A follow-up analysis of data from the 2008-2011 measles outbreak in France has been posted here

Image: Crowd at Disney, by Babs barning, Flickr. Creative Used under Commons License
 
Destroy is insufficient by too far.

ELIMINATION is Necessary and Inevitable.

ANY Alternative will means only TOTAL EXTINCTION SUICIDE, otherwise.

Eliminate the POPULATION, Eliminate the Economy, Eliminate the Market, Eliminate the Consumers - because there is INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES to support their existence! No Co-Existence Absolutely! The lack of Elimination will Ruin the whole Planet and cause TOTAL EXTINCTION, not even an ant can survive after that.

Russia has the MOST NUKES on the planet and Putin already declared and demonstrated 6 invincible nukes that Dotard-land cannot respond to ANY.

So what are we waiting for?

NUKE & MAGA!


This is Crimea Annexation celebration:

 
Last edited:
Found and article that confirms what I have known all along. As usual it is much ado about nothing and the the media sensationalizes things to create clickbait and people like you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

https://2020science.org/2015/02/03/risk-dying-catch-measles/

If you catch measles, what are your chances of dying?

When I was a kid, measles was one of those things you were expected to catch. I had it when I was five, and must confess, I don’t remember much about the experience. I do remember being confined to bed. And I also remember being told that measles could cause blindness – as a budding reader, this scared me. But I don’t recall anyone hinting at anything worse. If my parents were worried, they didn’t show it. And I’d certainly never heard of kids who had died – even in playground rumors.

So as the current outbreak of measles in the US continues to spread, I’ve been intrigued by statements that the disease has a mortality rate of somewhere between one and three young children per thousand infected.

Of course I know as a public health academic that measles is highly infectious and can cause severe harm – even death. But there was a dissonance between what I was reading and what I felt was correct. Surely if one out of every few hundred kids died as a result of measles as I was growing up, I’d have got wind of it?

The mortality rate of around 1 in 1000 though comes with a sound provenance. It’s there in black and white on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) web pages:

“For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it”​
A 2004 review in the Journal of Infectious Diseases provides further insight. Using CDC data on reported measles cases in the US between 1989 and 2000,Orenstein, Perry and Halsey indicated that approximately three children under the age of five died for every thousand that caught measles, and that the overall mortality rate for all ages was also around 3 per thousand people infected – the table below gives the data they used in deaths per thousand cases.

Measles-mortality-rates-in-the-US-1987-2000.png

MEASLES MORTALITY RATES IN THE US 1987 – 2000


This seems pretty convincing – maybe measles is more dangerous than we used to think back in the 70’s.

But there’s a catch.

The CDC dataset that Orenstein, Perry and Halsey used specifically refers to reported cases of measles. The derived mortality rate is for cases that are serious enough to have been flagged and logged by the agency. The question then becomes, how many cases occurred that weren’t reported, and how (if at all) do these alter the estimated mortality rate?

In a 2004 review entitled “Measles Eradication in the United States” (an optimistic title, in the light of current events), Orenstein, Papania and Warton make the point that not every case of measles in the US is reported, or at least it wasn’t, when the disease was more common.

According to their paper, from 1956 to 1960, there were an average of 450 measles-related deaths reported each year in the US, or approximately 1 death per 1000 reported cases. At the time though, it was estimated that more than 90% of Americans had been infected by measles by the age of 15 – equivalent to roughly 4 million children and teens per year. (Langmuir, A.D. (1962), Medical Importance of Measles. Am J Dis Child 103(3):224-226.)

These data suggest that the chances of dying from measles in the US in the late 1950’s was probably closer to 1 in 10,000.

Accounting for non-reported cases that led to death, and some uncertainty in the numbers, the mortality rate is realistically likely to be around one in a few thousand. But based on the data, it’s not likely to be as high the one or two deaths per 1,000 that’s being widely cited.

That shouldn’t detract from how important it is to prevent measles, and especially to protect young children, the elderly and other susceptible groups from infection. This is not a disease to be dismissed or taken lightly. It still kills nearly 150,000 people a year around the world according to the World Health Organization. It is highly infectious. And for communities to be adequately protected, there need to be high levels of immunization.

Yet from the available evidence, claiming that one or two children out of every 1,000 infected in the current US outbreak will die seems far fetched.

Sadly, using this mortality rate to hammer home the importance of getting kids vaccinated could well backfire. Like myself, many parents from my generation haven’t seen evidence for such a high chance of dying from the disease. And to use data that not only feel wrong, but are not backed up with evidence, only serves to undermines trust in public health experts.

Anti-vaccine proponents are smart enough to realize this. Each time the data on infectious diseases and risk are spun beyond their legitimate bounds, anti-vaccine proponents are given a helping hand in winning the hearts and minds of concerned parents.

Instead, public health experts and their advocates need to remain true to the data that support their message. Granted they won’t always be clear and compelling. But this should never be an excuse to spin the data to fit the story.

Ironically, for many people it’s not the numbers that count when it comes to making decisions over whether to vaccinate or not, so much as who to trust. But in deciding whom to place that trust in, numbers – and how they are used – can be very important indeed.

Update Feb 4 2015: A follow-up analysis of data from the 2008-2011 measles outbreak in France has been posted here

Image: Crowd at Disney, by Babs barning, Flickr. Creative Used under Commons License

Are you working for the Russians?
 
Measles is no big deal I had it when I was 5 years old and so did 95% of the child population. There was no vaccine in those days. I also caught, mumps, chickenpox and german measles and recovered from all these infections unscathed.

All the kids in the school went through the same series of infections and I never had wind of anyone dying or being disabled as a result.

The idea that measles can be weaponised is just plain ridiculous.

This proved that AMDK and Burmese are the best.
 
Back
Top