6798 stories
·
59 followers

Study: US is slipping toward measles being endemic once again

2 Shares

Enlarge / Child with a classic four-day rash from measles. (credit: CDC)

With firm vaccination campaigns, the US eliminated measles in 2000. The highly infectious virus was no longer constantly present in the country—no longer endemic. Since then, measles has only popped up when travelers carried it in, spurring mostly small outbreaks—ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred cases each year—that then fizzle out.

But all that may be about to change. With the rise of non-medical vaccine exemptions and delays, the country is backsliding toward endemic measles, Stanford and Baylor College of Medicine researchers warn this week. With extensive disease modeling, the researchers make clear just how close we are to seeing explosive, perhaps unshakeable, outbreaks.

According to results the researchers published in JAMA Pediatrics, a mere five-percent slip in measles-mumps-and-rubella (MMR) vaccination rates among kids aged two to 11 would triple measles cases in this age group and cost $2.1 million in public healthcare costs. And that’s just a small slice of the disease transmission outlook. Kids two to 11 years old only make up about 30 percent of the measles cases in current outbreaks. The number of cases would be much larger if the researchers had sufficient data to model the social mixing and immunization status of adults, teens, and infants under two.

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read the whole story
fxer
11 hours ago
reply
Bend, Oregon
Share this story
Delete

shipvicturi: McDonald’s has their 20 piece chicken nuggets on the 2 for $3 menu right now. You’re...

1 Comment and 2 Shares

shipvicturi:

McDonald’s has their 20 piece chicken nuggets on the 2 for $3 menu right now. You’re supposed to mix and match items, but there’s nothing stopping you from getting 2 orders of them for $3. Which means, for the low, low price of $9.63, I just got 120 chicken nuggets. The lady asked me three times if I was sure I wanted that many, and then when I rolled up to the window, she looked in my backseat like she expected to see four kids there, but it was just me. I took my 120 chicken nuggets home and ate them all, and I gotta say, this is what life is all about.

Read the whole story
fxer
14 hours ago
reply
best sawbuck I ever spent
Bend, Oregon
MotherHydra
14 hours ago
hold up, is this real?
Share this story
Delete

Michael Kors To Acquire Jimmy Choo In $1.2 Billion Deal

2 Shares
A store of shoe designer Jimmy Choo is seen in the mountain resort of St. Moritz, Switzerland on March 15, 2016.

Michael Kors is trying to shore up declining demand for expensive handbags, and says it aims to double the annual sales of the smaller footwear and accessories brand.

(Image credit: Arnd Wiegmann/Reuters)

Read the whole story
fxer
16 hours ago
reply
Bend, Oregon
Share this story
Delete

Does Your Family's Century-Old Pyrex Still Rule The Kitchen?

1 Comment and 2 Shares
After World War II, Americans were ready to fill their lives — and kitchens — with cheerful colors and kitsch.

It wouldn't be surprising. The cheerful, vintage pieces are durable and able to help with almost any culinary task. And passionate collectors have devoted blogs, fan groups and social media to it.

(Image credit: Courtesy of Morgan Mancha)

Read the whole story
fxer
16 hours ago
reply
Bend, Oregon
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
MotherHydra
14 hours ago
reply
I've got Pyrex bake/serve dishes old enough that the designs are now hip and on-trend again. Thanks to my great grandmother I will probably never have to buy Pyrex dishes of my own, and I'll likely be able to pass these down to someone else in the family. The design and color-ways are very mid-century and seem to go with just about anything.
Space City, USA
dreadhead
5 hours ago
I have a set of coloured mixing bowls that got passed down as well.

Amazon jacked up Prime Day prices, misleading consumers, says vendor

1 Share
Comments

A Charlotte-based startup says e-commerce king Amazon (AMZN) jacked up their suggested retail price during the company’s annual discount event—Prime Day—to deceive consumers into thinking that they were getting a deal, when in reality, they weren’t.

Continue Reading Below

Jason Jacobs, founder of Remodeez, a small company that specializes in non-toxic foot deodorizers and other odor stoppers, says he had an agreement with Amazon since 2015 on a suggested retail price of $9.99 for his products and was shocked after the tech giant almost doubled that on Prime Day to make it look like people were getting a discount, when they were actually paying full price.

“They showed the product at $15.42 and then exed it out to put ‘$9.99 for Amazon Prime Day.’ And on the final day, the price was like $18.44. So, we put a support ticket in right away and I rallied some friends through social media to go to their complaint board and complain,” Jacobs tells FOX Business.

Jacobs says the suggested retail price came back down to $9.99 the following day. As part of Jacobs’ agreement with Amazon, the online retailer does have the right to set their own pricing as they see fit, he says.

(Remodeez)

“We have an agreement, it’s an online form, where we come up with the price that I’m selling the [items] to Amazon for and then they got 2% damage hold back, 10% marketing hold back, and they kind of chip away at that. And then we say here is the suggested retail price and we all agree on that, but the vendor [me] cannot mandate a price, you can’t price fix,” he adds.

(Remodeez)

An Amazon spokesperson tells FOX Business that “Our customers expect to come to Amazon and find the lowest prices and we work hard to meet or beat them for all customers, across our entire retail selection. The world's prices fluctuate all the time and we seek to match the lowest price."

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

Still, after the Prime Day incident, Jacobs says he took a closer look at the pricing of his products since he started selling with Amazon LaunchPad in November of 2015 and he now believes the company also does demand-based pricing, also known as customer-based pricing, meaning they bump up the price of a product as soon as they start seeing it in high demand.

(Remodeez)

“I started looking back through history and found seven different times over the last 12 months that this happened. Each one of them correlate to being in BuzzFeed four times, or on Forbes.com, and with each one of these, there was a spike [in price],” he says.

In one case last year, Jacobs says BuzzFeed featured Remodeez' foot deodorizers as a new product must-have, linking to Amazon’s page for customers to snatch it at $9.99 but as soon as people started clicking the price climbed to $15.

"It’s not like they’re bumping it by a buck and making a little bit more money. They are really tanking sales and it kind of has a ripple effect to us, being a small company trying to do demand planning,” he says.

Jacobs says he has contacted both Amazon PR and Amazon’s director and global head of Amazon Launchpad regarding the issue but has yet to hear back.

Last week, Reuters reported The Federal Trade Commission is looking into similar allegations against Amazon regarding discount-pricing policies misleading consumers—a concern that was raised by the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog earlier this month.


“We did two studies that patterned Amazon using bogus prices to create the impression that people were getting a discount when their ‘was’ price never was. Our survey in June examined 1,000 products on the retailer’s website and found more than half (61%), had ‘was’ prices that never were,” John M. Simpson, consumer watchdog privacy project director, tells FOX Business.

Simpson says Amazon is breaking Section 5 (a) of the FTC Act that prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices."

CJ Rosenbaum, a New York based attorney who represents Amazon sellers, tells FOX Business that the company has settled claims in the past regarding allegations of Section 5 and adds that if this complaint is true, it goes against everything the company stands for.

"The funny thing about deceptive price discounting is that it flies in the face of Amazon's philosophy of 'customer obsession.' Amazon has 14 'Leadership Principles' that include its main one: obsess over the customer. Start with the customer and work backwards...is one of Amazon's mantras. Deceptive price discounting is opposite of that policy....of what Amazon claims to stand for. Deceptive price discounting tricks customers. It is the opposite of focusing on the customers,” Rosenbaum says.

Rosenbaum says Amazon does not have total control over prices, which are often set by third party sellers and companies that use algorithms to constantly raise and lower prices.

"Amazon sellers sign up for and pay for services to monitor inventory, demand and pricing and then adjust the prices of their products. But, even in this scenario, Amazon has the resources to address the issue...not the sellers who are simply trying to compete,” he adds.

Aaron Kelly, an Arizona-based attorney who also represents Amazon sellers, tells FOX Business while he has never heard of this tactic from Amazon, he has seen it from independent sellers “on occasion.”

“It’s strategy called ‘Price-anchoring.’ It’s pretty common across the board. Now as far as it being against the law or breaking any rules or regulations, it could be considered false and deceptive marketing under the FTC Section 5,” Kelly adds.

Jacobs says by speaking out against Amazon he carries “the risk [of them] squashing him for making noise,” but says it is worth it to bring the issue to light.

“I don’t think they are being malicious about it, it is just something that they need to tweak," he says.

 


Comments
Read the whole story
fxer
1 day ago
reply
Bend, Oregon
freeAgent
15 hours ago
This is pretty shady behavior on the part of Amazon. There is probably another side to this story, but it sounds like a breach of contract by them.
Share this story
Delete

Fact-checking and Rumor-dispelling Site Snopes.com Held Hostage By vendor

3 Comments
Snopes.com, which began as a small one-person effort in 1994 and has since become one of the Internet's oldest and most popular fact-checking sites, is in danger of closing its doors. From a report: Since our inception, we have always been a self-sustaining site that provides a free service to the online world: we've had no sponsors, no outside investors or funding, and no source of revenue other than that provided by online advertising. Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income. We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain services for Snopes.com. That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage. Although we maintain editorial control (for now), the vendor will not relinquish the site's hosting to our control, so we cannot modify the site, develop it, or -- most crucially -- place advertising on it. The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us. Our legal team is fighting hard for us, but, having been cut off from all revenue, we are facing the prospect of having no financial means to continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees) in the meanwhile.
Read the whole story
fxer
1 day ago
reply
seems sketchy enough that God knows where any donations would end up in the continuing lawsuits, im gonna steer clear
Bend, Oregon
dreadhead
1 day ago
Sounds like a divorce mess and not really a "vendor issue"
AaronPresley
16 hours ago
Its taken years of convincing to get my family to use Snopes to verify the bullshit they get in email forwards and hear from their friends. I don't give a shit who is the blame behind the scenes I just want Snopes to keep existing. $20 is doable with my budget so hell yea I donated.
fxer
15 hours ago
Whoever ends up with the money for whatever purpose thanks you
AaronPresley
14 hours ago
MEH
Share this story
Delete
2 public comments
jhamill
14 hours ago
reply
Why does the advertising vendor for snopes have control of their hosting?
California
jepler
14 hours ago
According to the "advertising vendor", they own a 50% stake in the company owning Snopes, i.e., they aren't just the advertising vendor
jhamill
13 hours ago
Huh, would have been nice to have that fact in the story.
jepler
1 day ago
reply
in which slashdot commenters fact check snopes.com "owner" claims
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
Next Page of Stories