tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post6536805501333375810..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Idiotic statisticsChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-3899951495025957602011-03-18T16:50:21.577+00:002011-03-18T16:50:21.577+00:00Dear Mark W.
Non-smokers do die from the diseases...Dear Mark W.<br /> Non-smokers do die from the diseases said to be caused by smoking; but,unless the cyclists ran into them, why would non-cyclists be involved in cycle accidents?<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-75793439778036252232011-03-18T14:56:24.536+00:002011-03-18T14:56:24.536+00:00Should be '120,000 cyclists' obviously.Should be '120,000 cyclists' obviously.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-69171515826318823612011-03-18T14:55:42.813+00:002011-03-18T14:55:42.813+00:00Good find. I suppose they might as well just class...Good find. I suppose they might as well just classify all deaths as smoking related and have done with it.<br /><br />Somebody dies in a car crash? Probably trying to light a cigarette while driving. Somebody drowns? Clearly short of breath because of smoking. Murdered? Probably the burglar was a smoker.<br />---------------------<br />But I think Gary K has pushed the logic a bit too far. Let's say (for example) 20% of the population ride bikes and 1% of the UK population (60 million) has a cycling accident each year.<br /><br />So there are 12 million cyclists and 600,000 cycling accidents, or one cycling accident per 100 population.<br /><br />It would be incorrect to use his logic and say that:<br /><br /><i>0.2 x 0.01 = 0.002 X 60 million = 120,400 cyclists having a cycling related accident due to nothing more than random co-incidence/co-occurrence.</i>Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-38111547079909574002011-03-18T14:03:01.285+00:002011-03-18T14:03:01.285+00:00Ken,
Oh yes!Ken,<br /><br />Oh yes!Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-48427206360980657232011-03-18T13:45:26.949+00:002011-03-18T13:45:26.949+00:00So according to WHO's definition, you could ha...So according to WHO's definition, you could have a lot of 'smoking-related deaths' in a population in which no one smokes at all?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03493440163559858462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-72241189599986174112011-03-17T16:20:46.233+00:002011-03-17T16:20:46.233+00:00The people making-up these numbers,as well as most...The people making-up these numbers,as well as most other people, seem to ignor the probability of 'random co-incidence/co-occurrence.<br /><br />For instance, in a group of 57 people, there is a 99% probability that two of them have the same birthday.<br /><br />% of people having condition A times the % of people having condition B times the total population gives the number of people that will have both A and B due to random co-iincidence/co-occurrence.<br /><br />In America, 20% of the adults are current smokers and lung cancer deaths are 0.00068% of the adult population.<br /><br />.2 X .00068 = 0.00017 X 230 million adults = 31,400 adult current smokers dying from lung cancer due to nothing more than random co-incidence/co-occurrence.<br /><br />Anti-tobacco claims there are about 32,800 smokers deaths from lung cancer 'caused' by their smoking.<br /><br />As shown, most of those deaths are random co-incidence/co-occurrence and are not 'caused' by smoking.<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-27248968142890571122011-03-17T14:57:49.039+00:002011-03-17T14:57:49.039+00:00Must be from all those second-, third-, fourth-, e...Must be from all those second-, third-, fourth-, etc-hand smoking effects.View from the Solenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00930587784230398787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-74931681418598609572011-03-17T14:41:17.697+00:002011-03-17T14:41:17.697+00:00"No one expects absolute precision from these..."No one expects absolute precision from these kinds of estimates, but what we have here are figures that are so wildly implausible they don't even pass the basic test of common sense."<br /><br />They don't pass the test of logic, actually. In the long run, if 100% of smokers die of a smoking-related cause, the percentage of smoking-related death will equal the percentage of smokers. It won't go further.<br /><br />If it does, that means at least one of those things:<br />- they assume that one person can die of several causes;<br />- they assume that non-smokers can die of smoking-related causes;<br />- they assume that non-smokers are punished for the sins of smokers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com