TOPIC: Try discussing here....

balthasar wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Josh M. wrote: All issues should absolutely be looked into and an informed decision should be made. Implying that vaccination injury is more dangerous than the disease is completely inaccurate though, empirically. The death rate is considerable higher for covid than the vaccine, we have the data to show that. Some people are more worried about the vaccine because it seems more immediate while covid seems more remote, and I get that, but it doesn't mean the numbers support that fear. I think Ben Franklin actually said it really well when he lost a child to a preventable disease, because he chose not to vaccinate for fear of vaccine injury (which was a much bigger risk back then):

"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen."

Humans are absolutely terrible at risk assessment. It's why we spend so much money on counterterrorism and so comparatively little on dealing with risks that are actually likely to touch our lives. We respond much more strongly to sad or scary anecdotes than we do to raw numbers and probability.

Quick google search says that the smallpox vaccine hadn’t even been invented yet in 1736. I cut and pasted the result at the top of the page when I googled it.

The smallpox vaccine, introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796, was the first successful vaccine to be developed. He observed that milkmaids who previously had caught cowpox did not catch smallpox and showed that inoculated vaccinia protected against inoculated variola virus.

Frankiln was referring to variolation, not vaccination.

Correct. I was using vaccination wrong here, as I thought it was an interchangeable term with inoculation. I should have been more precise with my language. None of that takes away from my point, however. Franklin chose not to inoculate his child because he was worried about the damage the inoculation process might do. It wasn't a small worry, the fatality rate for variolation was about 2% I believe, which is way higher than the extremely tiny chance of vaccine injury today. The paper he worked at even published numerous screeds against the process of variolation. Unfortunately the chances of dying of small pox were higher than the chances of inoculation injury. His choice led to the death of his son, which he deeply regretted later in life.

Fiddy wrote: PopCon (taking place at the ICC this weekend) announced yesterday that the ICC won't be requiring masks for vaccinated individuals. While smaller than a normal GenCon, it has been around the size that GC is limiting attendance to this year. I'll be curious to see how this plays out, and whether it winds up having any impact on GenCon.

Sadly, if compliance to that is anything like I've seen here, everyone will be "vaccinated" and not wearing masks, even when they should.

Josh M. wrote:

balthasar wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Josh M. wrote: All issues should absolutely be looked into and an informed decision should be made. Implying that vaccination injury is more dangerous than the disease is completely inaccurate though, empirically. The death rate is considerable higher for covid than the vaccine, we have the data to show that. Some people are more worried about the vaccine because it seems more immediate while covid seems more remote, and I get that, but it doesn't mean the numbers support that fear. I think Ben Franklin actually said it really well when he lost a child to a preventable disease, because he chose not to vaccinate for fear of vaccine injury (which was a much bigger risk back then):

"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen."

Humans are absolutely terrible at risk assessment. It's why we spend so much money on counterterrorism and so comparatively little on dealing with risks that are actually likely to touch our lives. We respond much more strongly to sad or scary anecdotes than we do to raw numbers and probability.

Quick google search says that the smallpox vaccine hadn’t even been invented yet in 1736. I cut and pasted the result at the top of the page when I googled it.

The smallpox vaccine, introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796, was the first successful vaccine to be developed. He observed that milkmaids who previously had caught cowpox did not catch smallpox and showed that inoculated vaccinia protected against inoculated variola virus.

Frankiln was referring to variolation, not vaccination.

Correct. I was using vaccination wrong here, as I thought it was an interchangeable term with inoculation. I should have been more precise with my language. None of that takes away from my point, however. Franklin chose not to inoculate his child because he was worried about the damage the inoculation process might do. It wasn't a small worry, the fatality rate for variolation was about 2% I believe, which is way higher than the extremely tiny chance of vaccine injury today. The paper he worked at even published numerous screeds against the process of variolation. Unfortunately the chances of dying of small pox were higher than the chances of inoculation injury. His choice led to the death of his son, which he deeply regretted later in life.

The truth is variolation has no hard numbers and people of the time were intentionally causing people to get the full strength illness. It’s kind of like those people that said let’s not wear mask so we all catch covid faster and get past this thing already, or those have chickenpox party’s. The difference is people of the time had kind of the right idea, but sadly missed the mark big time.

Yes I’m probably getting too much into the weeds here but I feel it’s important to be accurate with our facts and quotes. It’s not a rebuke of your point.

GenCon will be releasing an updated health/safety policy tomorrow (July 8).

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

balthasar wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Josh M. wrote: All issues should absolutely be looked into and an informed decision should be made. Implying that vaccination injury is more dangerous than the disease is completely inaccurate though, empirically. The death rate is considerable higher for covid than the vaccine, we have the data to show that. Some people are more worried about the vaccine because it seems more immediate while covid seems more remote, and I get that, but it doesn't mean the numbers support that fear. I think Ben Franklin actually said it really well when he lost a child to a preventable disease, because he chose not to vaccinate for fear of vaccine injury (which was a much bigger risk back then):

"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen."

Humans are absolutely terrible at risk assessment. It's why we spend so much money on counterterrorism and so comparatively little on dealing with risks that are actually likely to touch our lives. We respond much more strongly to sad or scary anecdotes than we do to raw numbers and probability.

Quick google search says that the smallpox vaccine hadn’t even been invented yet in 1736. I cut and pasted the result at the top of the page when I googled it.

The smallpox vaccine, introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796, was the first successful vaccine to be developed. He observed that milkmaids who previously had caught cowpox did not catch smallpox and showed that inoculated vaccinia protected against inoculated variola virus.

Frankiln was referring to variolation, not vaccination.

Correct. I was using vaccination wrong here, as I thought it was an interchangeable term with inoculation. I should have been more precise with my language. None of that takes away from my point, however. Franklin chose not to inoculate his child because he was worried about the damage the inoculation process might do. It wasn't a small worry, the fatality rate for variolation was about 2% I believe, which is way higher than the extremely tiny chance of vaccine injury today. The paper he worked at even published numerous screeds against the process of variolation. Unfortunately the chances of dying of small pox were higher than the chances of inoculation injury. His choice led to the death of his son, which he deeply regretted later in life.

The truth is variolation has no hard numbers and people of the time were intentionally causing people to get the full strength illness. It’s kind of like those people that said let’s not wear mask so we all catch covid faster and get past this thing already, or those have chickenpox party’s. The difference is people of the time had kind of the right idea, but sadly missed the mark big time.

Yes I’m probably getting too much into the weeds here but I feel it’s important to be accurate with our facts and quotes. It’s not a rebuke of your point.

Early proponents of variolation reported death rates and did a comparative statistical analysis. They reported a fatality rate of 2% for variolation and 14% for those that caught the disease without inoculation. You could argue that they weren't keeping an accurate count, it's not like it was peer reviewed, but there are numbers from that time. Variolation was dangerous but not as much as getting the disease normally.

Josh M. wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

balthasar wrote:

Wayne Rhodes wrote:

Josh M. wrote: All issues should absolutely be looked into and an informed decision should be made. Implying that vaccination injury is more dangerous than the disease is completely inaccurate though, empirically. The death rate is considerable higher for covid than the vaccine, we have the data to show that. Some people are more worried about the vaccine because it seems more immediate while covid seems more remote, and I get that, but it doesn't mean the numbers support that fear. I think Ben Franklin actually said it really well when he lost a child to a preventable disease, because he chose not to vaccinate for fear of vaccine injury (which was a much bigger risk back then):

"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen."

Humans are absolutely terrible at risk assessment. It's why we spend so much money on counterterrorism and so comparatively little on dealing with risks that are actually likely to touch our lives. We respond much more strongly to sad or scary anecdotes than we do to raw numbers and probability.

Quick google search says that the smallpox vaccine hadn’t even been invented yet in 1736. I cut and pasted the result at the top of the page when I googled it.

The smallpox vaccine, introduced by Edward Jenner in 1796, was the first successful vaccine to be developed. He observed that milkmaids who previously had caught cowpox did not catch smallpox and showed that inoculated vaccinia protected against inoculated variola virus.

Frankiln was referring to variolation, not vaccination.

Correct. I was using vaccination wrong here, as I thought it was an interchangeable term with inoculation. I should have been more precise with my language. None of that takes away from my point, however. Franklin chose not to inoculate his child because he was worried about the damage the inoculation process might do. It wasn't a small worry, the fatality rate for variolation was about 2% I believe, which is way higher than the extremely tiny chance of vaccine injury today. The paper he worked at even published numerous screeds against the process of variolation. Unfortunately the chances of dying of small pox were higher than the chances of inoculation injury. His choice led to the death of his son, which he deeply regretted later in life.

The truth is variolation has no hard numbers and people of the time were intentionally causing people to get the full strength illness. It’s kind of like those people that said let’s not wear mask so we all catch covid faster and get past this thing already, or those have chickenpox party’s. The difference is people of the time had kind of the right idea, but sadly missed the mark big time.

Yes I’m probably getting too much into the weeds here but I feel it’s important to be accurate with our facts and quotes. It’s not a rebuke of your point.

Early proponents of variolation reported death rates and did a comparative statistical analysis. They reported a fatality rate of 2% for variolation and 14% for those that caught the disease without inoculation. You could argue that they weren't keeping an accurate count, it's not like it was peer reviewed, but there are numbers from that time. Variolation was dangerous but not as much as getting the disease normally.

You are right I will not believe numbers from the time for many reasons, I will accept the numbers could be right, I could see where giving someone in good overall health, who has a better chance of fighting off smallpox could be a net positive, but that’s the same thinking that leads to chickenpox party’s (get it while your young and health so you don’t get it later in life when it’s harder on you.).

I think we can agree that variolation and vaccines are very different. I support vaccines. I would not take a variolation of something today period. I would also think quarantine would be more effective than variolation as well.

Kind of funny the topic has been derailed by a discussion on primitive science.

Edit to add a thought I had after posting this.
variolation Was mostly available to the nobility. It is a fact having better nutrition helps you have a strong immune system, this might explain off the fatality rate of variolation versus nothing (general public with pore nutrition). Just a thought

bpsymington wrote: GenCon will be releasing an updated health/safety policy tomorrow (July 8).

I am a bit more worried about safety outside of the ICC. I read yesterday on Indy news that two more women were shot on the canal walk over the weekend, on the one year anniversary of another woman randomly shot and killed there. My wife and I walk that often during GenCon. Is it safe to be outside the ICC or your hotel anymore?

raptorov wrote:

bpsymington wrote: GenCon will be releasing an updated health/safety policy tomorrow (July 8).

I am a bit more worried about safety outside of the ICC. I read yesterday on Indy news that two more women were shot on the canal walk over the weekend, on the one year anniversary of another woman randomly shot and killed there. My wife and I walk that often during GenCon. Is it safe to be outside the ICC or your hotel anymore?

These horrible incidents are happening after dark, the one this weekend was after midnight. I wouldn't recommend walking around unfamiliar neighborhoods in any city at night.

raptorov wrote:

bpsymington wrote: GenCon will be releasing an updated health/safety policy tomorrow (July 8).

I am a bit more worried about safety outside of the ICC. I read yesterday on Indy news that two more women were shot on the canal walk over the weekend, on the one year anniversary of another woman randomly shot and killed there. My wife and I walk that often during GenCon. Is it safe to be outside the ICC or your hotel anymore?

Gods, that's awful.

With so much time doing TD stuff, I don't remember the last time I was outside after dark at GC. I'm sure it was just to go to a nearby restaurant.

New GC update is out.

gencon.blog

Basically, masks are recommended for all, but required for anyone unvaxxed. If you don't want to wear a mask, you can check in at a health station and show proof of vaccination (or proof of a medical exemption) to get a wristband showing you are vaxxed.

bpsymington wrote: New GC update is out.

gencon.blog

Basically, masks are recommended for all, but required for anyone unvaxxed. If you don't want to wear a mask, you can check in at a health station and show proof of vaccination (or proof of a medical exemption) to get a wristband showing you are vaxxed.

Now I'm really sorry that True Dungeon won't be at GENCON, now that I wouldn't have to wear a mask I'd 1000% be there for True Dungeon!

Event registration for GC starts this Sunday at 9:00 am PST.