andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2011-11-25 11:00 am

Interesting Links for 25-11-2011

[identity profile] dalglir.livejournal.com 2011-11-25 01:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually, I thought the GMC had given guidance that everyone can drink as long as they do it in moderation. Sadly, the general drinking populace are generally incapable of understanding 'in moderation' and come up with things like 'alcopops don't count' etc. So it's easier for government to say 'don't drink at all'. Of course, government also has an agenda to reduce NHS costs which are hammered by heavy drinking related illness and injury every Friday and Saturday night...

[identity profile] dalglir.livejournal.com 2011-11-25 01:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I correct 'general drinking populace' to 'loud cohort who make people's lives a misery on a Saturday night'.

And agreed re GMC. The problem here is that some members have a political and ambition agenda that they can only further by spouting heavy handed garbage.

[identity profile] dalglir.livejournal.com 2011-11-25 01:34 pm (UTC)(link)
The anecdote is to illustrate that even with statistics on your side, shit still happens.

In that scenario, where would you rather your wife and child be?

[identity profile] dalglir.livejournal.com 2011-11-25 01:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I not sure that question is a fair comparison. They do not carry like for like possibilities of 'complications'.

Now: if i lived in a 200 window building and I knew that a rogue police marksman was aiming at a random window and was going to shoot whoever opened it, would I open my window? Probably not. I'd find a less risky way of getting fresh air.

.

[identity profile] dalglir.livejournal.com 2011-11-25 02:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Let's see how far we can take this analogy :)

Let's say risk of 'complication' from rogue police sniper is 1% in an apartment block 45 minutes from the hospital and a hospital block being terrorised by another rogue police sniper.

What the statistics of the study say is that, for people who have already been shot by a rogue police sniper once before ~45% of the unlucky 1% who get shot back at the apartment block end up have to go to hospital anyway (albeit mostly for flesh wounds). Critically, the statistics say that the risk of dying from being shot by a rogue police sniper the second time around is the same whether your at the apartment block (a 45 minute ambulance journey from the hospital) or at the hospital block (where all the surgeons are).

You know what? I'd still rather be shot by a rogue police sniper at the hospital block.

[identity profile] dalglir.livejournal.com 2011-11-25 02:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Reading more on this. It's quite fascinating seeing the different studies from different groups with different agendas.

[identity profile] kerrypolka.livejournal.com 2011-11-25 02:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Of course a statistically insignificant outcome feels more important when you're in the middle of it.

This is why anecdotes make for awful recommendations


LIKE THIS COMMENT