Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Stupid hacks sensationalising statistics that they don't understand!
Using the relative/proportional risk increase to illustrate the affect of x on incidence of disease y in these situations where the original risk is tiny is a nonsense.
For example, overall risk of developing disease is 1 in 210 or about 0.5%
Average height of US male = 5' 10''
Risk of developing disease of 6' male = 0.5%
6'2'' male = 0.6%
6'4'' male = 0.7%
i.e. still tiny.
Even if you're a 9' giant it's still only 1.7%
(assumes relative risk increases are not compounding)
Stupid hacks sensationalising statistics that they don't understand!
Using the relative/proportional risk increase to illustrate the affect of x on incidence of disease y in these situations where the original risk is tiny is a nonsense.
For example, overall risk of developing disease is 1 in 210 or about 0.5%
Average height of US male = 5' 10''
Risk of developing disease of 6' male = 0.5%
6'2'' male = 0.6%
6'4'' male = 0.7%
i.e. still tiny.
Even if you're a 9' giant it's still only 1.7%
(assumes relative risk increases are not compounding)
Yes, we know, but you should never let facts get in the way of playing with your balls.
Anyway, Spod's about 11 foot tall.
And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014
Comment