Comments on: How Can We Make It Clearer? When Will Anyone Notice? http://sufficientscruples.com/blog/2010/01/13/how-can-we-make-it-clearer/ Bioethics, healthcare policy, and related issues. Tue, 22 May 2012 19:39:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dan M. http://sufficientscruples.com/blog/2010/01/13/how-can-we-make-it-clearer/comment-page-1/#comment-455916 Dan M. Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:44:33 +0000 http://sufficientscruples.com/blog/?p=465#comment-455916 That's a vast improvement,, so that the graph at least means <i>something</i>. But I think it still doesn't mean much at all. <a href="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/healthcare_spen.html#comment-930690" rel="nofollow">One of Nate's commenters</a> covers at least the most obvious problems, but even that doesn't cover the much more problematic claim that there's "a strong correlation". First, Why are we even using a linear scale in dollars? Why are the dollars not adjusted for local buying power? Why is there no discussion of the fact that there clearly exists two separate populations in the graph (not counting the US), one for all the developed countries, which seeps to actually have a pretty weak correlation, and one for developing countries, which actually is much more obviously correlated? The new graph is a huge improvement. It's now only kinda crappy. But thanks much for the update. That’s a vast improvement,, so that the graph at least means something. But I think it still doesn’t mean much at all. One of Nate’s commenters covers at least the most obvious problems, but even that doesn’t cover the much more problematic claim that there’s “a strong correlation”. First, Why are we even using a linear scale in dollars? Why are the dollars not adjusted for local buying power? Why is there no discussion of the fact that there clearly exists two separate populations in the graph (not counting the US), one for all the developed countries, which seeps to actually have a pretty weak correlation, and one for developing countries, which actually is much more obviously correlated?

The new graph is a huge improvement. It’s now only kinda crappy. But thanks much for the update.

]]> By: Dan M. http://sufficientscruples.com/blog/2010/01/13/how-can-we-make-it-clearer/comment-page-1/#comment-453953 Dan M. Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:52:21 +0000 http://sufficientscruples.com/blog/?p=465#comment-453953 So, given that sanitation and water quality are strong correlates with life expectancy, if we are actually above average on those (we are, right?), that means our mediocre life expectancy is actually craptacular. However, I think "crude" is even too generous an assessment of life expectancy as a metric. It doesn't account for things like lifestyle choices, genetic stock, immigration, emigration, or dietary preferences. Arguably, our corn subsidies reduce our life expectancy more than or bad long-term care. (Yes, that's a wild-ass guess with no stats, but it seems prima facie possible to me.) On the other hand, life expectancy does capture our shitty neo-natal care. On the grasping hand, it's driven down by high-tech facilities that allow more would-be miscarriages to be brought to life birth. Really, it's a crappy, crappy stat. Oh, and that's one of the most irritating formats for a graph I've seen. If the goal is to show how we fail to match some otherwise present correlation, then just use a freaking 2-D graph! In fact, graphing of that bad quality makes me suspicious of the intentions of the grapher. (By the way, it's a good thing you post so rarely, otherwise I'd have to install and learn to use one of those "rodents of substantial size" readers, and I fear and detest web technology.) (No, wait, I'm lying. I'm just lazy.) So, given that sanitation and water quality are strong correlates with life expectancy, if we are actually above average on those (we are, right?), that means our mediocre life expectancy is actually craptacular.

However, I think “crude” is even too generous an assessment of life expectancy as a metric. It doesn’t account for things like lifestyle choices, genetic stock, immigration, emigration, or dietary preferences.

Arguably, our corn subsidies reduce our life expectancy more than or bad long-term care. (Yes, that’s a wild-ass guess with no stats, but it seems prima facie possible to me.) On the other hand, life expectancy does capture our shitty neo-natal care. On the grasping hand, it’s driven down by high-tech facilities that allow more would-be miscarriages to be brought to life birth.

Really, it’s a crappy, crappy stat. Oh, and that’s one of the most irritating formats for a graph I’ve seen. If the goal is to show how we fail to match some otherwise present correlation, then just use a freaking 2-D graph! In fact, graphing of that bad quality makes me suspicious of the intentions of the grapher.

(By the way, it’s a good thing you post so rarely, otherwise I’d have to install and learn to use one of those “rodents of substantial size” readers, and I fear and detest web technology.)

(No, wait, I’m lying. I’m just lazy.)

]]>