41–50 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The control group in this study only fell a couple of feet at most. I don't think it sucked much for them at all.
Smh. Poe's law disclaimer wink added.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for humans. You're thinking of cats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-rise_syndrome
This is almost certainly survivorship bias[1]. Only middle-height cats that might theoretically survive are going to be taken to a veterinarian; the cats that fell from higher heights were not included, because they were "obviously dead". Which makes "high-rise syndrome" an example of the exact type of bias discussed in this paper. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#In_cats
So, the theory is, if a cat falls from a height above 6 stories they either have less severe injuries or are just dead so the owner just doesn't bring them to the vet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for humans. You're thinking of cats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-rise_syndrome
This is almost certainly survivorship bias[1]. Only middle-height cats that might theoretically survive are going to be taken to a veterinarian; the cats that fell from higher heights were not included, because they were "obviously dead". Which makes "high-rise syndrome" an example of the exact type of bias discussed in this paper. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#In_cats
Anyone know if these results have been reproduced by anyone? I'm a bit skeptical.
The current title "Parachutes prevent death when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" is exactly the opposite of the article's conclusion: "Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9)." Nor is it the title of the actual article.
Would you indicate this is a satirical article? Half the time I was looking for jump height or understanding if adding parachutes to commercial aircraft that suddenly experienced breakage such as a missile would improve passenger survival.
There is obviously an element of satire, but are the authors are also trying to make some sort of statement about clinical trials?
If you want an RCT you need a control group who will be subjected to the horrible disease with standard treatment (and sometimes a group with no treatment), and a group subject to the experimental treatment. Who will volunteer for this trial? Perfectly health people? Or people with the disease?
Like, maybe the measles vaccine is all just placebo effect and good sanitation and handwashing practices. Can we do an RCT where we inject some children with saline instead of vaccine, then see what happens?
Because we can't be certain the children of crunchy hipsters who don't get immunised get measles is related to lack of immunisation, it might be they expose themselves to exotic strains by taking exotic holidays.
A coworker of mine once made this proposal. 5 of us would start a company. The company would buy key man insurance for everyone, then go on a company team building trip. On this trip, we'd all skydive, but one of the 5 parachutes would be non-functional...Profit! This coworker of mine soon after left the company by storming out of the meeting room and slamming the door, then took up playing online poker for a living.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tontine
A coworker of mine once made this proposal. 5 of us would start a company. The company would buy key man insurance for everyone, then go on a company team building trip. On this trip, we'd all skydive, but one of the 5 parachutes would be non-functional...Profit! This coworker of mine soon after left the company by storming out of the meeting room and slamming the door, then took up playing online poker for a living.