I have long been frustrated by just the sort of misuse of data you expose. It seems particularly rife in public health apparently because those responsible feel justified in using all available means, legitimate or not, in what they deem to be the overall public good. Few are willing to criticise on what might appear somewhat technical grounds, people claiming simply to want better public health.
A while ago I was particularly annoyed by those campaigning for no alcohol whatsoever to be tolerated in drivers' blood. They commissioned research by a leading University but then produced a report which misinterpreted the results for their own purpose. The University, to it's credit when essentially their customer and benefitting from undertaking such research, politely pointed out exactly what could and could not legitimately be said about the data obtained. Still these people insisted on using it in whatever way they thought could save lives. I then found that a number of those involved simply opposed consumption of alcohol in any circumstances.
Good post. I have long been annoyed by this type of analysis. Those fanciful costs to smokers themselves seem to assume that people are slaves to society rather than independent agents.
Another bait and switch by public health economists/activists can be to use one lower discount rate for benefits and another higher discount rate for costs thereby biasing public expenditure decisions towards health at the expense of any other area of economic activity.
Jeez, these people need to calm down - “have a ciggy and do your breathing” as we used to say to Grandma. I particularly like that “loss of tax revenue due to early death” line - gives one a true perspective of one’s value.
Idiots abound. Premature death by lung cancer is a horrible way to die, but short of outlawing cigarettes, it’s a citizen’s right to shorten his odds.
I have long been frustrated by just the sort of misuse of data you expose. It seems particularly rife in public health apparently because those responsible feel justified in using all available means, legitimate or not, in what they deem to be the overall public good. Few are willing to criticise on what might appear somewhat technical grounds, people claiming simply to want better public health.
A while ago I was particularly annoyed by those campaigning for no alcohol whatsoever to be tolerated in drivers' blood. They commissioned research by a leading University but then produced a report which misinterpreted the results for their own purpose. The University, to it's credit when essentially their customer and benefitting from undertaking such research, politely pointed out exactly what could and could not legitimately be said about the data obtained. Still these people insisted on using it in whatever way they thought could save lives. I then found that a number of those involved simply opposed consumption of alcohol in any circumstances.
Good post. I have long been annoyed by this type of analysis. Those fanciful costs to smokers themselves seem to assume that people are slaves to society rather than independent agents.
Another bait and switch by public health economists/activists can be to use one lower discount rate for benefits and another higher discount rate for costs thereby biasing public expenditure decisions towards health at the expense of any other area of economic activity.
Jeez, these people need to calm down - “have a ciggy and do your breathing” as we used to say to Grandma. I particularly like that “loss of tax revenue due to early death” line - gives one a true perspective of one’s value.