Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: I'm sad.

Posted by alexandra_k on July 20, 2013, at 18:21:13

In reply to I'm sad. » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 20, 2013, at 11:11:39

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reputable source that cited that. I think the saying goes 'there is lies, there is damned lies, and then there is statistics'. The trouble isn't so much in the statistics, but in the interpretation of the statistics...

I found this just yesterday:

'Suicide is a major cause of premature mortality in many countries, but is the situation becoming better or worse? Data from the UK show that
- between 1981 and 1998, suicide rates in men and women aged 15 and over *fell by 18%*
- between 1981 and 1998, the years of potential life lost due to suicide *increased by 5%*

How do we interpret these apparently conflicting data? The answer is that the major drop in suicide rates has occurred among the older age groups (45 years and over) and suicide rates in younger men have actually increased over the same time period. Suicide in a younger person leads to greater loss of potential life, so although the overall suicide rates are falling, this average effect hides an increasing loss of life among young men.

These data underline how different measures of health capture different things and can give very different pictures of the health of a population. A politician hoping to demonstrate improvements in mental health could legitimately claim that suicide rates were falling, while an advocate for more funding for mental health could equally legitimately cite the increase in years of life lost.

(Gunnell and Middleton, 2003) in Webb, Penny and Bain, Chris (2011) 'Essential epidemiology: An introduction for students and health professionals', 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, p66.

My point in posting that: The pharmaceutical companies focus on certain statistical findings in order to support the case they want to make - for the efficacy and safety of their product. Those who have been harmed focus on certain other statistical findings in order to support the case they want to make - for the inefficacy and danger of pharmaceutical products.

There is certainly a good case to be made either way...

It is kind of like different people having access to different parts of the elephant and then arguing over whether it is made of ivory and bone or whether it is made of skin and flesh.

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1047429
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1047532.html