Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 10 Jun 2010 14:05
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:57:25 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip[>


>Why would you understand the maths - you've never read the source paper
>and you never retain information you are given. The maths is given in
>the paper (and there is no evidence that the researchers involved were
>cyclists since they were medics in an A&E Department of a major hospital
>researching pedestrian injuries)
>
>"These data obtained in 3 months suggests yearly numbers of injuries
>from uneven pavements in our department are around 400. Extrapolation to
>a national level suggests there may be upwards of 60000 cases."


"there *may* be"

So you look at 100 people and extrapolate the results up to 60,000
case.


>"The injuries have a significant morbidity as well as a mortality of 1%."

There was one death - it was a bloke with a broken leg. There was no
evidence that the death was the result of the fall.

They did NOT extrapolate the figures to give deaths nationwide - you
did that.


>60,000 estimated cases nationally and a mortality rate of 1% gives an
>estimated 600 deaths a year from uneven pavements - about the same as
>the number killed by motor vehicles. Now that wasn't such difficult
>maths was it? Perhaps it's all those bumps on your helmeted head that
>are causing your confusion.
>
>Tony
>

That is one of the worst interpretations I have ever seen of the
results of a basic research paper. What a surprise that others did
not criticise you.

You are in the Chapman class of deceit.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?