3 ms·
> that the lifespans predicted (on solid evidence) for these children keep being invalidated and extended. My understanding is that they are also cautious in g
by Ntrails 8y ago
> that the lifespans predicted (on solid evidence) for these children keep being invalidated and extended.
My understanding is that they are also cautious in generating such estimates, excluding any non-concrete factors (improvements in healthcare etc) that might be used to modify a purely frequentist estimation given historical data.
In general it's probably better to tell a cohort that they've an expected lifetime pessimistically than optimistically?
- Normal_gaussian 8y agoYes. They always couch their estimates with the 'using current methods'. They do a lot of work to play down expectations, especially with respect to the kinds of things that may be seen in the media
- hinkley 8y agoIt's shitty bedside manner though, and provably harmful. This reminds me of the story a few weeks ago of the hemophiliac kid who got HIV and then spent his whole childhood believing he would never grow up, never find love, never have a life. How many people would just give in and roll over on that sort of news? It's self fulfilling prophecy.