All Hank, all the time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My rant is against the misrepresentation of any fact to the public for any purpose, even keeping people healthy. If the public can't understand epidemiological data (which it obviously can't, since even the press, and an assumed educated sector of the public, seems incapable of understanding it), then it should be offered with caveats, such as:

"NOTE: MOST PEOPLE WHO [INSERT VICE OR UNHEALTHY BEHAVIOR] DO NOT GET DISEASE. THIS IS EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA, WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN WE SAY YOUR 'RISK' INCREASES TWOFOLD, WE MEAN IT INCREASES FROM 1 IN 100,000 TO 2 IN 100,000."

If people must read this kind of data, why would it be a bad thing for them to understand it? Couldn't it save us a good deal of hysteria about diseases? A person I worked with wore sunscreen every day, even in the winter, because she read somewhere that accumulated sunlight over a lifetime could give you cancer. The article, of course, failed to note that it was physically impossible to get a skin cancer from 300 years worth of two minute jaunts from the subway to her office building (which was about the extent of her daily exposure to the sun's rays). That's probably the press's fault, but I think the medical community has an obligation to make sure the press explains a story in full, instead of writing it in a manner to scare people. But no one does that, because they figure the hyper-vigilance of the deluded is good for the deluded's health. Seems like lying by ommission to me.

OK, um, your responses on this seem mildly less stupid than what you have to say about pensions. But it may be just because I know more about pensions that health.