1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:38 pm UTC

YellowYeti wrote:Proof that if all children were called Logan, chickenpox would be eliminated from the globe.


So, Logans' Run ?
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:19 pm UTC

YellowYeti wrote:I wonder if we can do the same for Malaria, and what the optimum name would be?

How about 'Malaria' itself? Certainly as the problem of malaria falls the name of 'Malaria' loses a lot of its baggage, though that may depend upon one definite direction of causation. I'm not entirely sure how to accomplish the eradication by first instituting the popularising. :P

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Ginger » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:31 pm UTC

LOL forever and ever two hundred years... Sarah women and girls have a sixty percent rate of chicken pox. One of my favorite names too? Oh, the terrible fates of being a Sarah lady with chicken pox in our cruel, mess up world.... </3 :(
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

DanD
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby DanD » Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:21 pm UTC

YellowYeti wrote:Proof that if all children were called Logan, chickenpox would be eliminated from the globe.

I wonder if we can do the same for Malaria, and what the optimum name would be? More funding for research!


Malaria is more difficult, because it has a fairly widespread environmental reservoir, and isn't dependent on humans for any part of it's life cycle.

Of the two diseases we've wiped out, smallpox had no environmental reservoir, and thus was only dependent on human vaccination.

Rinderpest had a very limited environmental reservoir, and most of the relevant animals are large and controlled populations, so widespread vaccination was possible.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby ivnja » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:11 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:Sarah women and girls have a sixty percent rate of chicken pox. One of my favorite names too? Oh, the terrible fates of being a Sarah lady with chicken pox in our cruel, mess up world.... </3 :(

To be clear, it's not like Sarahs are getting chickenpox at a 60% rate *now*. The vaccine's effectiveness doesn't discriminate by name.
Hi you.
she/her

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Ginger » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:13 pm UTC

Of course not I was being silly and facetious... anyways, it's unclear... what the comic is even saying to me? Like, why bother linking Sarahs and chicken pox at all? Strangeness Mister Randall Monroe. Strangeness right meow.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Reka » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:44 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:what the comic is even saying to me? Like, why bother linking Sarahs and chicken pox at all?

Because correlation might not equal causation, but it sure makes for some fun coincidences. :)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3373
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:05 pm UTC

YellowYeti wrote:Proof that if all children were called Logan, chickenpox would be eliminated from the globe.

I wonder if we can do the same for Malaria, and what the optimum name would be? More funding for research!


"Buzz"?

Ginger wrote:Like, why bother linking Sarahs and chicken pox at all?


For a similar reason to why people link performance on intelligence tests with shoe size?

xtifr
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby xtifr » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:10 pm UTC

MarkGyver wrote:I took the liberty of relabeling the time axis as (birth) years so it doesn't depend on being viewed in 2018. But now it looks like the "1995" point on the graph happens in 1990.... Maybe this comic was meant for the year 2023?


Vaccines are not given at birth, and I can easily imagine a brand new vaccine being given to children as old as five, so the graph looks fine to me.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Ginger » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:22 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Ginger wrote:Like, why bother linking Sarahs and chicken pox at all?


For a similar reason to why people link performance on intelligence tests with shoe size?

Or why: Women and girls... tell gossipy about: Their boyfriend's... you know. Sizes. Base on his hands' sizes? Ha-ha I breathy giggles at peoples' superstitions base on a simple statistical... thing... where more Sarahs were vaccinate or something?

Reka wrote:Because correlation might not equal causation, but it sure makes for some fun coincidences.

True that. Just knowing that more people with a certain name were vaccinated for whatever makes me filled with schoolgirls' glee.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
MarkGyver
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:56 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby MarkGyver » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:41 am UTC

ivnja wrote:The arrow definitely doesn't point to '95, but I think the trend line does start to move at the right place, and the change in the late '80s or '90 is still explained by the 1995 introduction of the vaccine because the illness doesn't hit at birth, but at some later point in childhood.


Thanks! That explains the year-arrow mismatch.
Generation 0: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature and change it so that it looks like you inspired this signature. Social experiment.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby pogrmman » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:56 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:
MarkGyver wrote:I took the liberty of relabeling the time axis as (birth) years so it doesn't depend on being viewed in 2018. But now it looks like the "1995" point on the graph happens in 1990.... Maybe this comic was meant for the year 2023?


Vaccines are not given at birth, and I can easily imagine a brand new vaccine being given to children as old as five, so the graph looks fine to me.


At least when I (born 97) was getting the chickenpox vaccine, they did it in several doses -- first around 6 I think. I never got the extra doses because I did end up getting chickenpox at 7. That would make sense. Also, the fact that people don't usually get it before they go to elementary school accounts for it too.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2896
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby orthogon » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:08 pm UTC

jozwa wrote:There's a vaccine for it now?

It was news to me too, and it turns out that it isn't given in the UK, for rather cool reasons. Essentially, chickenpox is unpleasant but isn't very serious when contracted in childhood, whereas it can be harmful in adulthood and particularly in later life or during pregnancy. The vaccine would protect those who are vaccinated, but there would be children who aren't vaccinated, due to parental fecklessness or a fuckwitteddly ignorant and reactionary attitude to science deeply held concern for the safety of vaccinations. Those unvaccinated kids would grow up to be at-risk adults who might contract the disease during pregnancy and/or be at greater risk of shingles, the more serious relative of chickenpox.

So as a general public health matter, it's better to have chickenpox be endemic in the general population, meaning that essentially no child escapes it. It's like a kind of natural vaccination programme that you can't avoid. I remember my sister-in-law saying she'd been rubbing my nephew up against my chickenpox-afflicted niece in order to make damned sure he caught it.

Perhaps the policy is the same in other European countries?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Flumble » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:47 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
jozwa wrote:There's a vaccine for it now?

It was news to me too, and it turns out that it isn't given in the UK, for rather cool reasons. Essentially, chickenpox is unpleasant but isn't very serious when contracted in childhood, whereas it can be harmful in adulthood and particularly in later life or during pregnancy. The vaccine would protect those who are vaccinated, but there would be children who aren't vaccinated, due to parental fecklessness or a fuckwitteddly ignorant and reactionary attitude to science deeply held concern for the safety of vaccinations. Those unvaccinated kids would grow up to be at-risk adults who might contract the disease during pregnancy and/or be at greater risk of shingles, the more serious relative of chickenpox.

What do you think of allowing young adults to get vaccinated once their "deeply concerned" parents can't decide anymore? Then the only people left unvaccinated are stubborn people and kids of stubborn people (who won't get all too ill from chickenpox).
Vaccinating also means that those who have not contracted chickenpox as kids (by sheer luck, and not being forced like your nephew) will be less susceptible to shingles.

Of course you're still left with the economical consideration and how effective the vaccine is compared to chickenpox itself. (I mean, if there's a 20% chance to contract shingles after only the vaccine vs. a 3% chance to contract shingles after full-blown chickenpox, you sure as hell want that chickenpox)

orthogon wrote:Perhaps the policy is the same in other European countries?

I can confirm there's no active vaccination in the Netherlands and Belgium.

User avatar
karhell
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:56 pm UTC
Location: Breizh

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby karhell » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:15 am UTC

Flumble wrote:
orthogon wrote:Perhaps the policy is the same in other European countries?

I can confirm there's no active vaccination in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Can't say there isn't with 100% certainty, but if there is such a thing in France, I haven't heard about it.
AluisioASG wrote:191 years ago, the great D. Pedro I drew his sword and said: "Indent thy code or die!"
lmjb1964 wrote:We're weird but it's okay.
ColletArrow, katakissa, iskinner, thunk, GnomeAnne, Quantized, and any other Blitzers, have fun on your journey!

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Eowiel » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:44 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
jozwa wrote:There's a vaccine for it now?


So as a general public health matter, it's better to have chickenpox be endemic in the general population, meaning that essentially no child escapes it. It's like a kind of natural vaccination programme that you can't avoid. I remember my sister-in-law saying she'd been rubbing my nephew up against my chickenpox-afflicted niece in order to make damned sure he caught it.

Perhaps the policy is the same in other European countries?


Here in Belgium parents also have the habit of, certainly when their child hasn't had the disease at a certain age, letting their child play with other kids who have the disease so they get sick too. (Typing it out suddenly makes me aware it sounds kinda evil)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:12 pm UTC

"Pox Parties" are(/were?) a British thing. Can't exactly recall any link between a childhood party and the time I got chicken pox (though I attended few parties, not being that social even at that age, and it could just have been regular school contact), but it was probably not quite so obviously cause-and-immediate-effect. I remember the camomile lotion. I don't recall being a propagator whilst I knew I was ill. Maybe I was just a sink, not a source.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests