Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
8th eh? Who knew that all that cold in Canada is good for your health?
Everything lasts longer in a freezer.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama bowing again
Obama bowing againFollow
Everything lasts longer in a freezer.
Good point. You do have to watch for freezer burn though. Terrible way to spoil something you were looking forward to.
Edited, Nov 18th 2009 9:03am by Uglysasquatch
Edited, Nov 18th 2009 9:03am by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
publiusvarus wrote:
Aripya,
And as people eat more ice cream, the crime rate increases.
Quote:
And yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, the USA ranks 50th in the world for length of life expectancy, whilst the UK ranks 36th. Canada comes in at 8th, and Australia at 7th.
And as people eat more ice cream, the crime rate increases.
Wow, you're making even less sense than normal. Congrats on that, must be hard.
publiusvarus wrote:
Aripya,
And as people eat more ice cream, the crime rate increases.
Quote:
And yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, the USA ranks 50th in the world for length of life expectancy, whilst the UK ranks 36th. Canada comes in at 8th, and Australia at 7th.
And as people eat more ice cream, the crime rate increases.
The correct statement is that as more ice cream is consumed, more people drown. Well done, though.
Except the point remains that the US has lower life expectancy. I agree not all of it can be attributed to the flawed healthcare system, but I have no doubt there is a strong correlation.
publiusvarus wrote:
I apologize I shouldn't expect someone with your limited intellect to understand that correlation doesn't mean causation.
What's that you said about British cancer deaths and government health care systems? Correlation doesn't equal causation? I agree completely.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
publiusvarus wrote:
Aripya,
And as people eat more ice cream, the crime rate increases.
Quote:
And yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, the USA ranks 50th in the world for length of life expectancy, whilst the UK ranks 36th. Canada comes in at 8th, and Australia at 7th.
And as people eat more ice cream, the crime rate increases.
So why do Americans die earlier? Why is your infant mortality rate so much higher? After all, the USA is richer, spends much, much more on healthcare by every metric and, you know, the Australians are just as obese as Americans.
Must be those Mexican immigrants, right?
Sir Kavekk wrote:
Must be those Mexican immigrants, right?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,
You want to believe there is a strong correlation so that you can feel good about your views.
Edited, Nov 18th 2009 10:15am by publiusvarus
Quote:
Except the point remains that the US has lower life expectancy. I agree not all of it can be attributed to the flawed healthcare system, but I have no doubt there is a strong correlation.
You want to believe there is a strong correlation so that you can feel good about your views.
Edited, Nov 18th 2009 10:15am by publiusvarus
No, I see that countries with governmental healthcare have higher longevity than those without. They correlate together. It doesn't mean one causes the other, but there's a high likeliness that they do. I've been out of statistics for a few years so I don't feel like trying to figure out the correlation coefficient, but I would imagine there's definitely one that's stronger than not.
Sir Kavekk wrote:
So why do Americans die earlier? Why is your infant mortality rate so much higher? After all, the USA is richer, spends much, much more on healthcare by every metric and, you know, the Australians are just as obese as Americans.
Now, now... to be fair to Varrus, our lax attitudes on gun control probably help contribute to the higher mortality rate in the US. So it's not all health care.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
to be fair to Varrus
Do we have to?
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,
We eat fatty foods and don't exercise, generally speaking of course.
Quote:
So why do Americans die earlier?
We eat fatty foods and don't exercise, generally speaking of course.
prove that there is causation.
Jophiel wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
I apologize I shouldn't expect someone with your limited intellect to understand that correlation doesn't mean causation.
What's that you said about British cancer deaths and government health care systems? Correlation doesn't equal causation? I agree completely.
To be fair, the statement about mortality rates for cancer patients does speak directly to the ability of the health care system to treat them effectively. We're not talking about the total number or percentage of the population who get cancer, but what percentage of people who do get cancer end out dying from it. That's pretty directly an issue of treatment effectiveness.
And overall life expectancy figure for the whole population includes factors well outside the health industry itself. There's no way we can say that people in the US live shorter lives because they just aren't able to get good health care.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268gbaji,
Posted: Nov 18 2009 at 3:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) There's also a high degree of correlation between countries with governmental health care and high degrees of socialism. Which tends to include things like planned development designed to maximize population density (putting people closer to emergency resources), and perhaps more relevantly pushing people into mass transit and away from private forms of transportation. I'd suggest that the figures for longevity in the US are most affected by the abnormally high rate of private car ownership and use than to any other component.
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, the statement about mortality rates for cancer patients does speak directly to the ability of the health care system to treat them effectively.
Not necessarily.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
No, I see that countries with governmental healthcare have higher longevity than those without. They correlate together. It doesn't mean one causes the other, but there's a high likeliness that they do. I've been out of statistics for a few years so I don't feel like trying to figure out the correlation coefficient, but I would imagine there's definitely one that's stronger than not.
I'd suggest that the figures for longevity in the US are most affected by the abnormally high rate of private car ownership and use than to any other component.
Suggest away. Again, it's a correlation. No one said causation, but there is some kind of effect. Crunch some number, Gbaji, show us that cars do more than healthcare!
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, the statement about mortality rates for cancer patients does speak directly to the ability of the health care system to treat them effectively.
Not necessarily.
It's far more correlated to quality of health care than total life expectancy among a population though. The only errant factor is that a population in the UK might for some unrelated reason be more likely to contract forms of cancer which are harder to treat and more fatal. There are hundreds of factors which could explain an overall life expectancy figure difference between two populations. Climate, diet, habits, genetics, air quality, safety laws, the list just goes on and on and on...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
LockeColeMA wrote:
Suggest away. Again, it's a correlation. No one said causation, but there is some kind of effect. Crunch some number, Gbaji, show us that cars do more than healthcare!
There are degrees of correlation though. I think we can all agree that there are numerous factors contributing to the overall life expectancy of a given population, so an attempt to correlate it to just one thing (quality of health care) is questionable.
The correlation between cancer fatality rates and quality of health care is much stronger. Joph dismissed that correlation by implying it's similar (or outweighed) by the other. But they are not equivalently correlated. Hence, his argument was weak at best...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, the statement about mortality rates for cancer patients does speak directly to the ability of the health care system to treat them effectively.
Possibly but not necessarily. And if the correlation on both is weak then saying one is "closer" doesn't say much. You're "closer" to China than I am but, in a "who can hit Beijing with a softball" contest, that doesn't mean much.
Edited, Nov 18th 2009 4:26pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, the statement about mortality rates for cancer patients does speak directly to the ability of the health care system to treat them effectively.
Possibly but not necessarily. And if the correlation on both is weak then saying one is "closer" doesn't say much. You're "closer" to China than I am but, in a "who can hit Beijing with a softball" contest, that doesn't mean much.
Except that the correlation between cancer fatality rates and quality of health care is *not* weak. That's where your problem lies. You attempted to equate that correlation to one that is weak, and now that we've all agreed that your example is weak, you're attempting to insist that this means that the initial correlation made by Varus must also be weak.
It's not though. That correlation is looking at the percentage of people who are diagnosed with a particular category of illness who die from their illness. As I said in my earlier post, that is very directly affected by the quality of health care. There just aren't that many other factors involved. You have cancer. If you have cancer and are treated in the UK, your chance of dying is X. If you have cancer and are treated in the US, your chance of dying is Y. There's a pretty decent difference between X and Y.
That's not a weak correlation. It's a very strong one.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I would like to know the values for X and Y.
gbaji wrote:
I'd suggest that the figures for longevity in the US are most affected by the abnormally high rate of private car ownership and use than to any other component.
The UK, for example has about 1/5th the population of the US, but about 1/15th the number of car fatalities per year. You know. If we're going to look for plausible reasons for such things...
The UK, for example has about 1/5th the population of the US, but about 1/15th the number of car fatalities per year. You know. If we're going to look for plausible reasons for such things...
That would explain how Canada has simialr car ownership numbers to the US(per captia), but still maintains a significantly higher longevity rate.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Recent Visitors: 449
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (449)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama bowing again
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC