On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 10:40:46 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

[...]

"Vaccine Risk Perceptions and Ad Hoc Risk Communication: An Empirical
Assessment"

"Based on survey and experimental methods (N = 2,316), the Report
presents two principal findings: first, that vaccine risks are neither
a matter of concern for the vast majority of the public nor an issue
of contention among recognizable demographic, political, or cultural
subgroups..."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2386034

Ed,

Thanks for the pointer. I haven't read all of it, but the first part, at
least, is surprisingly clear and readable, even to someone outside the
field, and the conclusions seem... well, if we weren't dealing with human
beings attempting to describe human behaviour, I'd call them "obvious".
( Worth saying anyway, though. grin! )

I've passed it along to my niece Sophie, who spent a year studying Public
Health.


Frank McKenney
--
In medicine we all want certainty -- but we'd settle for rigor.
Rigor, though, demands a high price in the complexity and size
of experiments; and the numbers required for confidence in the
results may be beyond any institution's capacity to adminster.
Ultimately, we reach a point where society has to trust the
researchers to isolate the right variables in the right studies.
We will never be entirely free from medical tact.
-- "Chances Are..." / Michael and Ellen Kaplan
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:16:32 -0600, Frnak McKenney
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 10:40:46 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

[...]

"Vaccine Risk Perceptions and Ad Hoc Risk Communication: An Empirical
Assessment"

"Based on survey and experimental methods (N = 2,316), the Report
presents two principal findings: first, that vaccine risks are neither
a matter of concern for the vast majority of the public nor an issue
of contention among recognizable demographic, political, or cultural
subgroups..."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2386034

Ed,

Thanks for the pointer. I haven't read all of it, but the first part, at
least, is surprisingly clear and readable, even to someone outside the
field, and the conclusions seem... well, if we weren't dealing with human
beings attempting to describe human behaviour, I'd call them "obvious".
( Worth saying anyway, though. grin! )

I've passed it along to my niece Sophie, who spent a year studying Public
Health.


Frank McKenney

Oh, you're welcome, Frank. I'm glad you got some use out of it.

--
Ed Huntress


--
In medicine we all want certainty -- but we'd settle for rigor.
Rigor, though, demands a high price in the complexity and size
of experiments; and the numbers required for confidence in the
results may be beyond any institution's capacity to adminster.
Ultimately, we reach a point where society has to trust the
researchers to isolate the right variables in the right studies.
We will never be entirely free from medical tact.
-- "Chances Are..." / Michael and Ellen Kaplan