Indeed. A particularly good one, I thought. 
I have no idea what to think … you’re a Monkey with a gun. Monkeys are universally fun, and never to be taken seriously. But with a gun? No, wait, it’s still freakin’ hysterical.
Oh, wait, this is the Pit, I think I’m supposed to call you a name or nitpick or something.
Bad monkey!
Badger, darling, I’ve been tutoring moronic psychology students all day. (Believe me, that’s not fun). I’m just sick of bad arguments. That’s why I posted. Here, I can say “No! that’s wrong! Use logic, damnit!” The pit is a bit cathartic.
Of course I’m also a little drunk, so why not poke a bear?
p.s.the gaudererer’s law thing was intentional.
[sub]Not that you’re a bear, of course. I don’t mean to imply. Unless you’re a sexy female bear, then that’s allright. Well, it’s allright with me, I like bears. I hope being a sexy female bear brings you self esteem. Self esteem is important. Anyway, can I buy you dinner?[/sub]
Okay, sure (I can certainly sympathise; I cleared my desk at college yesterday having finished teaching duties for ever, which felt pretty damn good).
But the “UK is worse at cancer” argument is itself a bad argument, one that elides pretty much every pertinent point relating to the study of screening and treatment. It is logically, scientifically and medically illiterate, and traduces the fine work being done on screening programmes by doctors and researchers around the world, all for the sake of a shitty partisan soundbite. Call for rationality in medical policy debate, fine; but you couldn’t have chosen a worse starting point.
On the bear question, I believe I’d need to be considerably larger and much gayer to qualify. Sorry.
It’s in your own damn cite! Show me something more than a magazine article that proves fucking Lancet Oncology wrong.
Look, this is just getting stupid. Come back when you’re sober, eh?
ahh, screw it.
Enough with devil’s advocate. My heart just ain’t in it.
I’ve explained it twice. I’m not going to do it a third time. If you can’t grasp the simple fact that nominal survival rates depend heavily on diagnosis policy, then there really isn’t any point in proceeding.
Edit: okay, that post read something different when I replied to it.
As a devil’s advocate, you should be well familiar with the phrase "figures don’t lie, but liars do figure. Statistics mean nothing without context; “American wins, Russian comes in last” and “Russian comes in second, American next to last” can both be true of the same race, if there are are only 2 runners.
American cancer survival rates…I wouldn’t exactly say they’re lies, but we tend to use a different definition of “cancer survivor” than many other countries do and that differing definition tends to pad our numbers. For example, my mother-in-law had a small growth removed from her breast 5 or 6 years ago, followed by radiation and 5 years of Tamoxifen. She’s fine, and is 99.99% likely to never hear from this again. She is considered a cancer patient, and is figured into current 5 year survival rates. She’ll probably live another 30 years, based on her family history, and will thus be figured into 10-, 15-, 20-, 25- and 30- year survival rates for breast cancer treatment in this country.
But in any other first-world nation, she wouldn’t be considered a breast cancer survivor, because what she had removed was what we call a “Stage 0 tumor” and the rest of the world calls a “pre-cancerous growth.” Her results would have been the same–in Britain she would have had aggressive monitoring and if things progressed she’d have had the same treatment she got here, with pretty much the same results. But she would only be counted as cancer patient when and if things progressed.
Thank you for that; explained far more patiently than I managed.
Who the hell needs tutoring in psychology? :smack:
Also, what do differing cancer survival rates have to do with health care insurance reform?
Am I the only one who guessed the Independent Women’s Forum was Beyonce’s new album?
The “logic” (let’s be charitable), runs thus:
[ul][li]Apparent survival rates for some cancers in the UK are lower. True[/li][li]This means a person with the same cancer is less likely to survive in the UK than in the US. False[/li][li]This means it is the UK’s funding system that causes these people to die. False[/li][li]The current health proposals in the US are equivalent to the UK’s system. False[/li][li]Therefore, if we implement these proposals, more people will die of cancer. False[/li][/ul]
As you can see, it’s a brilliant argument, with only one or two minor flaws.
“Yes, I do have a question, thank you. Recently, in town hall meetings like this one, we’ve seen a lot of people showing up asking questions that, if they just bothered to stop and think for a few seconds, could be easily shown to be rooted in massive ignorance and conservative fear mongering. My question is, when these unthinking imbeciles start braying this kind of idiocy at you and you instinctively roll your eyes at it, how do you stop from pulling muscles? I’ve had that happen several times lately, and it’s quite painful. Do you do special exercises, or has your time in Congress just hardened you?”
There are no serious proposals in congress for a UK style system, so the ad is a deliberately misleading scare tactic regardless of whether or not it’s figures are accurate.
The ad is warning against the adoption of a system that is not being considered by anyone in Congress. Why warn against a system that no one is considering? What possible purpose can it have other than to confuse and frighten people? Either that, or the IWF is itself confused which, I admit, is very possible, even likely.
Let’s use a car analogy. One garage has a test that determines your battery may be bad. in 10% of the cases the battery would last longer than the car and doesn’t have to be replaced. If we submit every car to this test we would end up replacing lots of batteries needlessly. Another garage uses a different test, and it is more predictive of failure. They will replace less batteries.
Now since a bad battery may be indicative of other problems such as a bad alternator, some number of the cars with the replaced batteries will have another problem later on. The first garage will have a smaller proportion of these since they replaced batteries in otherwise good cars. The second garage will have a larger proportion of batteries that fail again. Just comparing the percent of replaced batteries that fail a second time will seem to indicate that the first garage is better. The real comparison should be the number of cars that brokedown with bad batteries. If this is the same, then the second garage did a better job. Especially if replacing batteries is expensive, may cause other problems, and involves sticking a probe up your tailpipe.
Oops, I didn’t realize that I was replying to two different posts by the same person with basically the same answer. :smack:
Back to the cannibalistic epaulets…
It’s allright, I wasn’t that serious to begin with. And as such, even I wasn’t sure what question I was answering answering in either post.
Oh, and I blame global warming on Obama.
You may be on to something here. All those people flying back and forth between Africa and Hawaii back in the sixties in order to establish his fake bona fides must have generated a hell of a lot of carbon.