Re: HPV [was Re: health/killers, before it was changed from HPV]


"boots" <no@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:ci95i4tditg29jtsr12nqdg5ph98snhrnu@xxxxxxxxxx
"John Ashby" <johnashby20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"boots" <no@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:7935i4h5mql1kovhv7mtoqr5f42dir6knf@xxxxxxxxxx
Towse <self@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
Cervical cancer kills maybe 4,000 people in a year.
Prostate cancer kills around 30,000 people in a year.
Colon cancer kills maybe 60,000 people in a year.

<snip>
Why knock the facts?

Basically they're irrelevant.

Hello, John. It's been a while hasn't it.

Just because you don't understand statistics and can't make appropriate
use
of them, down not mean they are irrelevant.

And straight away you're off to the "call boots an idiot" parade
aren't you, cuntie.


Over your time posting here, you've repeatedly displayed disdain for and
ignorance of statistical methods. The second would be forgiveable, as would
the first if not for the second.

The quoted statistics are irrelevant, meaningless, and unimportant.
They describe things that happened to some individuals, not things
that happen to all individuals, or that can potentially happen to any
given individual. The implication that because things happened to
some individuals there is a chance of their happening to any given
individual in proportion is baseless unless the individual attributes
significance to the concept.


That's a very grandiose set of words that simply put denies the possibility
of statistics applying. It therefore begs the question.

You say that the statistics do not describe what can potentially happen to
an individual. That is precisely what they do describe. There are most
likely deterministic causes, but we currently do not, and in some cases
cannot, know them. We encapsulate our ignorance in statistics, because
although we do not know everything, we know something and we can make use of
that knowledge, in this case in public health initiatives.

Statistics like those have terrified
the easily frightened for a long time. In the final analysis it
doesn't matter unless *you* or one of your loved ones count in the
statistics.

What a depressingly self-centred view.

What a foolish thing for an evolutionist to say.

It is not necessary for an evolutionist to be a misanthrope.

One of the basic
assumptions of Darwinism is that each species does its best to survive
and thus only the most fit are able to survive.

At the species level. There are numerous examples of altruistic behaviour in
the animal kingdom.

I say better to hold
an honest self-centered view than to devolve into the tree-hugging
paternalism that is so politically correct these days. Three children
fell and skinned their knees, so we must institute legislation which
requires all children to wear kneeguards,

I agree, but of course that argumentum ad absurdum does not address that
some health and safety or public health measures are effective. The trick is
to separate out which ones are, and well-used statistics are invaluable in
deciding that.

what a load of rubbish that
entire approach is; if the human race collectively adopts that
viewpoint it will be so encumbered by fear-induced protective gear
that it'll be a sitting duck for nearly any other species. The
tree-huggers are reintroducing wolves into a society that frowns on
personal armament, there's one example of gross stupidity for you.

Where would we be if Semmelweiss had
looked at the statistics, said "Well, I'm not going to die of puerperal
fever" and dismissed them as irrelevant?

What makes you think he did anything out of the kindness of his
tree-hugging heart? Could it not be possible that he simply found it
interesting, or that personal experience pissed him off at it and he
determined to kill the annoyance? Or maybe he was just a really sweet
fellow who went around looking for wrongs to right.


His motives are irrelevant to my argument which directly addressed yours.
Semmelweiss, as a man, was not personally concerned by the possibility of
death by puerperal fever. When he saw how many women died he took actions
which dramatically reduced the incidence. With your attitude he might have
just said "some women die, we don't know which ones but they're obviously
just fated to die. Which had been pretty much the approach of the medical
profession until then.

How many people are murdered each year?
How many people die in auto accidents each year?
How many people die as a result of freak accidents each year?
How many people die of natural causes each year?
How many people die as a result of vampire/werewolf attacks each year?

Which category were you in last year? Has your life been meaningful
and fulfilling this year?

How many people live meaningful and fulfilling lives? Virtually none and
yet
everyone.

The above paragraph says nothing whatsoever.


In that it says as much as your original questions. If you are oen to the
sentiment, though, it says much more.


Suppose, hypothetically, that cancer has two pre-requisites that
include some genetic capability and fear of cancer. That would mean
there are those who are capable of cancer and those who are not.
Those who are capable would be more likely to exhibit the symptoms if
they were afraid they would. Even a simple exercise like that matches
up with the increase in cancer since statistics regarding its
incidence began to be published, and the increased statistical
likelihood that a person will get cancer if a close relative has had
cancer.


Yes, we can all set up hypotheticals that contain the answer we want. I
prefer to live in the real world.

The statistics posted are descriptive, not predictive. If 93% of all
professional window-washers fell to their deaths last year are you
going to leave the windows dirty? Of course not, the statistics do
not apply.

If 93% fell to their deaths last year and every year, then we would be
remiss in not investigating the causes and providing (better) safety
harnesses or better training or whatever it would take to improve the
statistics. Yes, the statistics describe what has happened, and the
assumption is that without other intervention much the same will happen
again. The statistics are the statistics and do apply. I think what you are
taking issue with is the use to which statistics are put.

john


.