Because of the 0.3%, i.e. 180,000 who die, and the few million who end up ill in hospital.

Doh.
1. Because despite having lived cosseted lives where everything is provided for us from cradle to grave, be it food, security, education, healthcare, or law and order,

SOMEHOW many young people I come across seem to have a higher sense of civic virtue than you...
And understand that rather than moaning about the government for not providing them with more free stuff, they can do something useful to prevent the spread, which is to get vaccinated.
It is the young people I would have expected to complain the most (as they have the least to gain), but oddly I haven't seen much complaint from those I know.

Maybe it is because the young people I meet are at University so they are more intelligent than average.
Somehow the people on the steps there seem to have misused their extra years of life experience to become dimmer rather than wiser.
I have these words for low-IQ people busy protesting about someone doing medical research to make a vaccine. (Presumably they have run out of other things to complain about.)

Words of 1 syllable.
See those old folk, dead from co vid?

They did not get it straight from lab in chi na.
Each got it from a guy or gal, who got it from a guy or gal, and so on.

It was a long chain.

The chain goes back a year.

Most of them in that chain are young fit guys or gals like you.
All it would take is for one of them to have NOT passed it on,

and all the guys and gals down the chain would have been free of it.

So the old folk would not be dead.
So yes if you take it, it will not help you much.

Why you take it, is to save lots of old, weak folk, who worked them selves to the bone for years, so that you can be rich and free to moan on the street.
Question 2.
I am happy to answer question 2, to anyone who has thought about clinical trials interpretation.

Please post your scores from inspirion.org so we know you are not just a timewaster.

tweetorials.inspirion.org/h2/c48ed511bc7…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Prof Darrel Francis ☺ Mk CardioFellows Great Again

Prof Darrel Francis ☺ Mk CardioFellows Great Again Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfDFrancis

8 Dec
Yes that sentence made me laugh.

Of course it can't be "stenosis per se" because there is no single index of "stenosis per se" for a patient.
If you had a high resolution map of everything what would you use?

How about tightest percent stenosis anywhere in coro?
If you thought it was great then you are going to rate a person with an isolated 75% stenosis of the distal RCA worse than a person with five 70%ish stenoses of each of the LAD, CX, RCA, Om1 and D1.
Read 19 tweets
8 Dec
Suppose you motor-bike to work every day. @rallamee nags you, "Why don't you wear a crash helmet, it is safer, blah blah blah."

If you wear a crash helmet today (ONLY), how will it improve your survival curve?

(Hazard = death risk on a particular day)
That baffled people, sorry. This isn't supposed to be the hard bit.

Wearing a crash helmet TODAY makes my motorcycle riding safer for me TODAY.

I go back to no-helmet from tomorrow onwards. Does the fact that I had worn a helmet today, make tomorrows ride safer?
Being a non-smoker today helps me not die today.

Does whether I smoke today have any influence on the probability of me surviving through the whole of 8 Dec 2030, GIVEN THAT I survive up to the end of 7 Dec 2030?

i.e. can smoking today cause _future_ death?
Read 23 tweets
7 Dec
NEVER be disappointed with a <100% score on Inspirion.

Your FIRST-TIME score is NOT an index of your knowledge or intelligence. It is an index of how non-obvious the questions are.

It is your REPEAT score that is an index of how effectively you have learned _to do_ things.
So cheer up. Every time you get a question wrong, think about what you could have done to get it right, and make sure to do that thing in future (in real life, not in inspirion).

If you get a low score (say 30%) - smile! You're learning lots.
If you keep getting 100%, the course is not for you, as you are probably a statistician or a bit sad in the head, to be so good at hard things.

My own score is often less than 100%.

i.e. I have to reword ~1-2 Qs or As per seminar, in light of comments.

tweetorials.inspirion.org/h2/c48ed511bc7…
Read 4 tweets
26 Nov
Can you estimate the answer? Image
Most people get it wrong.

See how you get on, here:

tweetorials.inspirion.org/h2/64ab4b36e2e…
3 out of 3 correct here! Image
Read 4 tweets
25 Nov
Here is the article!

It is absolutely hilarious! There are several giveaways that this is not really a doctor. Which can you spot?
Thank you to various people who sent me details of circumventing the Telegraph's paywall. I generally avoid doing that, for articles where the _authors_ would want me to pay to read (as it is their living).

I subscribe to publications to support them.
SCIENTIFIC papers are written by people who would be absolutely delighted to give you copies of all their work for free. They have zero interest in anyone charging you to read their work

So I am happy to let them communicate with me via sci-hub.se or any other means
Read 16 tweets
16 Nov
A stout defender of Mineral Oil!

Here are my thoughts though...
The FDA does not allow or disallow particular things to be used as a placebo. They use their common sense.

My common sense says "Mineral oil is inert, because (a) it is mineral rather than animal or vegetable, and (b) we use Paraffin as a laxative, because it is inert."
Unfortunately my common sense is wrong.

That's life.

To their credit, the REDUCE-IT people and the EVAPORATE people did not *assume* it was inert. They tested that hypothesis.

REDUCE-IT result of that careful test: Image
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!