3 ms·

Yes, also, the base rate of smoking in different groups is important to take into consideration to prevent the base rate fallacy. Very few Chinese American wom

Yes, also, the base rate of smoking in different groups is important to take into consideration to prevent the base rate fallacy. Very few Chinese American women smoke (~2%), so if smokers and non-smokers have the same chance of getting lung cancer not caused by smoking, then the number of non-smokers with lung cancer will be a larger proportion. If 100% of some group would be non-smokers, then obviously 100% of lung cancer cases in that group will be in non-smokers. It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated.

blueflow 1y ago
> It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated. Whats the correct interpretation of this?
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  It’s difficult to give any accurate interpretation of, because it’s not a meaningful statistic. For example, every person hospitalised from COVID-19 had consumed water at some point in preceding months. It’s not evidence that water causes severe complications from COVID-19.
  - dinfinity 1y ago
    No, this is incorrect and misleading. It is a meaningful statistic when interpreted right. See sibling comment.
    - d1sxeyes 1y ago
      In and of itself own, as quoted by OP, it’s not meaningful. Sibling comment is thoughtful and helpful but adds information not present in OP’s statement (base rate). Edit: ah, you are OP. Just swap “OP” for “you” :)
      - dinfinity 1y ago
        > In and of itself own, as quoted by OP, it’s not meaningful. This is an overly literal, pedantic, and ungenerous interpretation of what I said. Clearly the actual numbers as well as the base rates for the relevant groups are necessary to meaningfully interpret the statistic, but I was hinting at a similar case after describing the logic for the original case, not exhaustively describing the similar case.
        d1sxeyes 1y ago
        Wasn’t my intention to be overly pedantic and certainly not ungenerous. I’m sorry.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        You need to drink water to still be alive. You need to be alive to die from covid. Voila drinking water causes covid deaths.
- Lex-2008 1y ago
  Let's start with an extreme example: each day more people die in traffic accidents, than by falling from a 10-story building. But still, we all can agree that driving a car is safer than falling from a building. Why? Because driving a car you get more chance to get to your destination safely than falling from a building. ChatGPT estimates 0.01% chance to die in car accident per year, when driving every day, and 90-99% to die when falling from a building, once. However, since there are many millions of people who drive a car every day, multiplying very little chance to die in car crash by millions of people, we get thousands of traffic-related death per day. Compare that to single-digit number of people falling from buildings, even if all of them die from it. Back to Covid, let's imagine a village with simple numbers like this: 10 people were NOT vaccinated, 100 people WERE vaccinated. Of 10 people who were NOT vaccinated, all 10 got hospitalized. Of 100 people who WERE vaccinated, 20 got hospitalized. _Correct_ way to look at this village would be: ALL people who were NOT vaccinated, got hospitalized - 100% hospitalization rate. But among those who WERE vaccinated, only 20% got hospitalized. Hence, it's better to be vaccinated - this way you'll get 80% chance of not being hospitalized :) I'm not a real statistician, and don't have actual numbers on hand, but situation with real world numbers is similar: among people who were vaccinated, less percent were hospitalized than among those who were not. It's just that we had so many many vaccinated people, that their small hospitalization rate, when multiplied by total number of vaccinated people, outweighs number of not-vaccinated and hospitalized people.
  - dinfinity 1y ago
    Yep, pretty much this. More information found by searching for "base rate fallacy" or just the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
    - blueflow 1y ago
      Cool. I didn't know the effect of the vaccine is so poor, that you now need to account for statistical biases to see its effect at all. That's less than what i was told, and I'm not happy. Honestly what a shit vaccine. Measles and Tetanus vax did better.

blueflow 1y ago

> It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated. Whats the correct interpretation of this?

d1sxeyes 1y ago
It’s difficult to give any accurate interpretation of, because it’s not a meaningful statistic. For example, every person hospitalised from COVID-19 had consumed water at some point in preceding months. It’s not evidence that water causes severe complications from COVID-19.
- dinfinity 1y ago
  No, this is incorrect and misleading. It is a meaningful statistic when interpreted right. See sibling comment.
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    In and of itself own, as quoted by OP, it’s not meaningful. Sibling comment is thoughtful and helpful but adds information not present in OP’s statement (base rate). Edit: ah, you are OP. Just swap “OP” for “you” :)
    - dinfinity 1y ago
      > In and of itself own, as quoted by OP, it’s not meaningful. This is an overly literal, pedantic, and ungenerous interpretation of what I said. Clearly the actual numbers as well as the base rates for the relevant groups are necessary to meaningfully interpret the statistic, but I was hinting at a similar case after describing the logic for the original case, not exhaustively describing the similar case.
      - d1sxeyes 1y ago
        Wasn’t my intention to be overly pedantic and certainly not ungenerous. I’m sorry.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      You need to drink water to still be alive. You need to be alive to die from covid. Voila drinking water causes covid deaths.
Lex-2008 1y ago
Let's start with an extreme example: each day more people die in traffic accidents, than by falling from a 10-story building. But still, we all can agree that driving a car is safer than falling from a building. Why? Because driving a car you get more chance to get to your destination safely than falling from a building. ChatGPT estimates 0.01% chance to die in car accident per year, when driving every day, and 90-99% to die when falling from a building, once. However, since there are many millions of people who drive a car every day, multiplying very little chance to die in car crash by millions of people, we get thousands of traffic-related death per day. Compare that to single-digit number of people falling from buildings, even if all of them die from it. Back to Covid, let's imagine a village with simple numbers like this: 10 people were NOT vaccinated, 100 people WERE vaccinated. Of 10 people who were NOT vaccinated, all 10 got hospitalized. Of 100 people who WERE vaccinated, 20 got hospitalized. _Correct_ way to look at this village would be: ALL people who were NOT vaccinated, got hospitalized - 100% hospitalization rate. But among those who WERE vaccinated, only 20% got hospitalized. Hence, it's better to be vaccinated - this way you'll get 80% chance of not being hospitalized :) I'm not a real statistician, and don't have actual numbers on hand, but situation with real world numbers is similar: among people who were vaccinated, less percent were hospitalized than among those who were not. It's just that we had so many many vaccinated people, that their small hospitalization rate, when multiplied by total number of vaccinated people, outweighs number of not-vaccinated and hospitalized people.
- dinfinity 1y ago
  Yep, pretty much this. More information found by searching for "base rate fallacy" or just the Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
  - blueflow 1y ago
    Cool. I didn't know the effect of the vaccine is so poor, that you now need to account for statistical biases to see its effect at all. That's less than what i was told, and I'm not happy. Honestly what a shit vaccine. Measles and Tetanus vax did better.