| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | | | |
| | even without the 22,000 opoid painkiller deaths posioning would still be number 1.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.50.68|162.158.50.68]] 09:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | | even without the 22,000 opoid painkiller deaths posioning would still be number 1.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.50.68|162.158.50.68]] 09:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | :Yeah, I've re-checked that source and it doesn't actually seem that accurate in its numbers. I've replaced it with one that seems better. Wait, actually, that one's also pretty questionable. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/poisoning/poisoning.htm This one] seems accurate but not really all the information we're looking for—maybe the CDC has a better article? If someone could find one that is accurate and relevant, that would be a big help. [[User:Ncpenguin|Ncpenguin]] ([[User talk:Ncpenguin|talk]]) 02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | :Well, there are other drugs you can overdose with. However, the most obvious problem with that statistics is that many people would assume that "poisoning" means "being deliberate poisoned", but most of those deaths from poisoning are accidents. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | | :Well, there are other drugs you can overdose with. However, the most obvious problem with that statistics is that many people would assume that "poisoning" means "being deliberate poisoned", but most of those deaths from poisoning are accidents. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
| Line 39: |
Line 37: |
| | | | |
| | If you have a lot of doctor visits, it's probably the case that you have some chronic illness, and also that you have a lot of measurements. Nevertheless, how many measurements you've had is not a good metric of health. Robert Carnegie [email protected] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.145|172.70.90.145]] 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | | If you have a lot of doctor visits, it's probably the case that you have some chronic illness, and also that you have a lot of measurements. Nevertheless, how many measurements you've had is not a good metric of health. Robert Carnegie [email protected] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.145|172.70.90.145]] 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm convinced this particular comic is a snipe at poor control of {{w|availability bias}} and {{w|base rate fallacy}} in family medicine, (perhaps even involving the roots of the opioid crisis and similar scandals) so I added those and did a lot of copy-editing including adding some overlooked comic dialog and trimming about six or seven sentences of proposed possible explanations which were entirely unconvincing to me. If you put one of your potential explanations that I deleted back in, please try to flesh it out a little showing how it might relate to the actual comic instead of just sharing vague abstract philosophical similarities. Thank you! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.183|162.158.166.183]] 01:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This reminds me a bit of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF2ZhY8xX_w The United Appeal for the Dead] in "Kentucky Fried Movie" [[User:Kimmerin|Kimmerin]] ([[User talk:Kimmerin|talk]]) 08:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is it really 'technically correct' to say that 'causality is the leading cause of death'? This seems like a category error to me. 'Causality' refers to the chain of events - it's not, in itself, a thing that can be a cause. I would say rather that this has the appearance of an obviously tautological statement, but in fact is meaningless nonsense. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.211|172.70.85.211]] 09:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Death is a change of state, not a state in itself (being dead prerequires having been alive, or at least at one point being possibly thought to have once been alive*). This cannot happen (have happened, be potentially happening) in a causation-free static existence.
| |
| − | :: (*) - With caveats for, say, "a dead planet" which is more about hopes (or lack of them) for the possibility of life under a different chain of circumstances... But I suppose that just supports this interpretation more.
| |
| − | : As such, without a causality, nothing of a death can occur. However finely you cut the moment of your universally static diorama, you can never have a death frozen, merely something that might lead to death, if allowed to play, or would have been a death if not constructed as 'dead' already.
| |
| − | : I.e. To have a death needs a causal chain (of ''any'' concoction) and that obviously cannot happen outside of a causality itself.
| |
| − | : Also, 100% of known deaths happen where there is causality (and the claim is only that it's a ''leading'' cause, so far more cautious!). Whether that means that "causation implies correlation" is left as an excercise to the reader. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 16:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: Preventing causality doesn't seem like it would prevent death, it just means that everyone who dies would die for no reason. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.178|108.162.246.178]] 20:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::: Or else no one would die at all. Quite possibly nothing would happen, period, because for things to happen other things must make them happen.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 04:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My first thought was this classic Peanuts comic [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/302937512407585780/] [[User:Anthony11]]
| |
