4 ms·
Decline of cash credited for drop in surgery for children swallowing objects
- timewizard 2y agoFlatly absurd. These are the kinds of connections only a schizophrenic mind could make. "For example, surgeons performed 484 (31%) fewer procedures to remove something from a child’s nose in 2022 compared with 2012." So your sample size is so absurdly small that your conclusions could not possibly have any meaning. What a waste of time this article was. -- EDIT: The population of the UK is 68 million people and this is an entirely retrospective assessment. There's probably a reason they just didn't link to the RCSE page itself as it's speculation is far more reserved: https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/press-releases/drop-in-children-needing-operations-for-items-stuck-in-their-nose-and-mouth/ https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/press-... That reads far less like a paper trying to "nudge" people in a preferred direction.
- dehrmann 2y agoI wish it had better data to back it up, but it's reasonable to think that coins are a popular thing for kids to play with.
- MajimasEyepatch 2y agoIs sample size even relevant here? If they’re working with NHS data, presumably they have pretty reliable population data (i.e. not randomly sampled) to work with. And regardless, even if it was a sample, I don’t see how a sample of thousands would be too small to detect a very large effect like that, unless the variance was extremely high. (But again, I’m not sure that complaining about “sample size” even makes sense in this case.)
- timewizard 2y ago> Is sample size even relevant here? There are two sample sizes. Kids who put things in noses. People who use cash. One is vastly larger than the other. Drawing conclusions from one about the other _purely retrospectively_ is nonsense.
- MajimasEyepatch 2y agoI agree that an observational study cannot prove that the reduction in these cases is due to the rise of cashless payments. The researchers themselves say it is “multifactorial.” However, that has absolutely nothing to do with “sample size.” There is no sampling here. The relative size of the population of people using cash vs. the population of kids sticking things up their nose also has nothing to do with whether is study is valid. The study is essentially making an observation and then presenting a hypothesis: in 2012, the use of cash began to decline in the UK, and over the next 10 years, there was a significant decline in the number of cases reported to the NHS where kids had to have a foreign object removed. Given that 75% of cases historically involved coins, the authors make a totally reasonable inference that the decline in the use of cash in the UK over this exact period likely played a big role. They also name several other factors that may have contributed. Your strong reaction to this study seems disproportionate and misguided. It’s not the most powerful or compelling study, but there’s nothing blatant wrong with it.
- krisoft 2y ago> So your sample size is so absurdly small that your conclusions could not possibly have any meaning. What do you mean by sample size? These are total numbers for the whole year. There is no sampling going on. > The population of the UK is 68 million people Ok? So what? > and this is an entirely retrospective assessment. Again, what does this mean? How else would you notice these trends? Proactively? > There's probably a reason they just didn't link to the RCSE page itself as it's speculation is far more reserved I read both, and they seem to say the same. Where do you see the difference?
- Dylan16807 2y agoMore than a thousand hits is a very good sample size. The total population of the UK barely matters in this check for statistical significance. A very general rule of thumb is that you want 10-100 samples in each category. In this case it's about a thousand children in one category and millions in the other category. That's more than enough to measure a 30% difference.
- trollbridge 2y agoGetting rid of 1¢/2¢/5¢ coins would be a help, simply so there are fewer coins floating around - less change given on an average transaction. My kids love playing with coins and before they turn 4 or so, love sticking them in their mouth. You have to be careful not to leave them around. We got a gumball machine that dispenses M&Ms, so at least now they think of coins as “something I should spend” instead of “something I should chew on”. Coins aren’t that toxic… most of the time. An even worse threat is button and coin cell batteries. Those should really leave any parent worried. When disposing of them, they need to be wrapped up in something big enough they can’t be swallowed and then taped up so the coin can’t get out. Lately I’ve been disposing of them in a sharps container I have for getting rid of Stanley knife razor blades, another decent choice.
- hinkley 2y agoNot just kids but also dogs.
- tialaramex 2y agoWait, do Americans (judging from your 1cent coins) not have battery recycling? All my coin cells just go in the battery recycling.
- rafaelmn 2y agoI'd say in this case it's worse if you have recycling because then you have to keep them around until you get them to recycling vs. just chucking them in the bin.
- wizzwizz4 2y agoBut they can stay in the "dangerous objects that children don't have access to" place, until you take them to the battery recycling.
- wiether 2y agoSo what you need is... a recycling bin where you put stuff that are awaiting your next trip to the recycling station. Batteries, light-bulbs, small electronics...
- rage4774 2y agohttps://archive.is/2025.03.28-005050/https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/28/decline-of-cash-credited-for-drop-in-nhs-surgery-for-children-swallowing-objects https://archive.is/2025.03.28-005050/https://www.theguardian...
- hinkley 2y agoI’d like to see a similar analysis on rechargeable devices vis a vis batteries instead of coins.
- skeeter2020 2y agoWhy they have to make guesses at this and not actually know the reason? Based on my experience with ER visits there's a form specifically for things removed from a child's nose: 1. raisin, 2. battery, 3. coin, 4. army man, 5. intelligence-enhancing crayon(s) 6. other
- stuartjohnson12 2y agoUpvoted for the optional plurality of "intelligence-enhancing crayon(s)"
- Guthur 2y agoMy thought exactly, I found it utterly incredulously that we some how have theses statistics with out any sort of object classification.
- dgrin91 2y agoThe red ones give the most intelligence
- erickhill 2y agoLet us not forget green peas, so we don’t have to eat them.
- derefr 2y agoHuh. Why raisins, but not other raisin-sized foods (e.g. sunflower seeds, Tic Tacs, etc)?
- bariswheel 2y agoTerrible headline.
- GenshoTikamura 2y ago[flagged]
- oska 2y agoVery obvious objective being served by this "think of the children" propaganda piece https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- pyuser583 2y agoIt’s an unnecessarily confusing headline. “Decline of cash credited” makes me think of “cash credited” in accounting. The actual headline is “Decline of cash credited for drop in NHS surgery for children swallowing objects” … which doesn’t provide the context necessary to correct this misunderstanding until after you figure you what “NHS surgery” is. It’s a really bad sentence.
- frontfor 2y agoYes I wish people are more cognisant of potentially confusing and misleading writing and proactively write clearer language.
- ivanjermakov 2y agoI thought govt reduced spending on children surgeries, utterly confusing.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 2y agoAn obvious manipulation tactic on the path to abolish cash. "Think of the children!" A better alternative, remove small coins. They serve no purpose nowadays, inflation made them obsolete. They are even more expensive to make then their inherent worth. The only purpose left for using small coins is for psychological manipulation, by pricing items at 0,99 instead of 1,00. This has been proven a successful tactic for supermarkets and vendors, to the detriment of buyers, who are manipulated into thinking something is "cheaper", because the price is reduced by 1% or less. A few European countries, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy already use the practice of rounding to 5 with no issues whatsoever, thereby basically removing smaller coins.
- zaphod420 2y ago"An obvious manipulation tactic on the path to abolish cash." This was the first thing I thought.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dangus 2y agoWe don’t even need the choking hazard of coins to justify getting rid of them. There is essentially nothing you can buy that is individually less than a quarter in value, and probably still not a whole lot that is less than a dollar. Maybe some disposable shopping bags? Some screws at the hardware store? I think the US could eliminate coins and start printing 25 cent or maybe 50 cent bills, or perhaps not even do that at all. Transactions under a dollar could be rounded up or be made electronically (eliminate the minimum flat fee part of card transactions first, though).