3 ms·

As long as you can accept that kind of statistical argument for things that you did not agree with a priori.

• FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Well. They didn't consult with me on this study to see if I agreed a priori. But I am able to understand what they are attempting to quantify. I'm just not in the camp of something being difficult means it is garbage. It isn't that hard to conceptualize: -> traumatic event happens, -> there are follow on ramifications, -> some of them shorten life spans. -> And a shortened life span means death. As others in the thread said. Maybe something like " Quality-adjust life years (QALYs)" would have been more generalizable metric.
  • hackeraccount 2y ago
    I understand the logic it just seems like using that chain of consequences seems to produce weird results i.e. Item A kills 1% of the population a year, item B kill 1% a year, Item C kills 1% a year but somehow only 1% of the population dies every year. Though QALYs may get at that.
    • FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Ok. So kind of like problem with Drake Equation. Depending on made up % for each variable, can have wild swings. I don't think that is the case here. The 'science' around counting deaths is older and more fleshed out than you are giving credit. People have been studying the impact of different types of events and co-factors on counting deaths for many decades. This isn't just winging it with some new made up statistics.