Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (11986)	11/30/2009 6:14:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Then why did you bring up self-examination in a discussion of survival rates here vs Europe? Because she was comparing apples and aircraft carriers. I offered a number of differences between the sets she was comparing to try to illustrate how dramatically different they were and how ridiculous it was to treat them as though they were comparable. Some of the differences I mentioned were key demographics. Others were just some random variables that popped into my head from among the dozens that probably exist. Self-exam was one of those random variables that make the US and European sets non-comparable. If you were rigorous with your statistics or even a thoughtful amateur you would have to control for all those variables. She just slopped it all together. Whether the reduction is 11% or a smaller percent is less relevant than that a reduction would occur from reducing mammograms for women under 40. I realize thats not your opinion. Its mine. We've covered this before. It depends on relevant to what. I did not take issue with the relevance of the degree of difference to the question of whether forty-something women should get mammograms, which is what I think you had in mind. I never challenged your opinion on that. The degree to which she was off was and is relevant to just how big a dope or a liar she is. Remember, my forest is her misinformation, not the utility of mammograms for women. Message 26133949 That certainly seems like a lot. I didn't and don't have a problem with that opinion. Again, that's your forest. I never argued it. I know. Again, the issue is how important it is to be exact about the benefits of mammograms for women in their 40's. For you, very, for me, not very. I would not expect exact. I think ballpark is just fine for discussions like this. But being off by a factor of ten is out of the ballpark and into the next county. She clearly hyped the effect. Remember, my forest is her tactics. You said earlier mammograms in Europe would save lives (ie boost the survival rate) at "approximately the same rate in Europe". That is exactly what the writer you called dishonest and stupid assumed. Good grief! Brumar, she didn't assume that at all. Had she had equated forty-something US women who might lose their lives due to the unavailability of funding for mammograms(an apple) with forty-something women in the Europe losing their lives for lack of a mammogram (another apple) you and I would not be having this discussion. What she did was equate said forty-something US women (apple) with all European breast cancer victims regardless of age, mammogram, or any other variable (aircraft carrier). She claimed that the totality of the difference in survival rates all breast cancer victims in each country (two aircraft carriers), all eleven percent of that difference, could be attributed to half the US forty-somethings who under current policy get mammograms (half of an apple). Let me try some numbers. Maybe that will help. Say that the White Sox bat 500% for the season and the Red Sox bat 400%. That means that the White Sox bat 25% better than the Red Sox. Now let's say that one of the White Sox's two designated hitters goes into a slump and his batting average is cut in half. If we apply the author's logic to this scenario, she would say that the 50% reduction in that one designated hitter's batting average would mean that the White Sox batting average would drop 25%. Clearly, one player in a slump would not make a very big difference in the team's batting average. It would hardly make a dent. If that doesn't produce a breakthrough, I give up.