After death of Joshua Dean & John Barnett, their lawyers are concerned about the possibility that around 10 more Boeing whistleblowers may suffer the same fate.
Yes if you’re including the entire population which is not how stats works as his demographic is exponentially more at risk than many others (age, onset of pneumonia, etc)
You don’t just take the entire population and calculate the odds that they will contract and/or die of something. For instance, I could trivialize bike injuries/deaths in the US because countless people do not commute regularly on their bikes. Hell tens of millions don’t even have one and haven’t ridden a bike since they were children. The stat isn’t super useful unless we are discussing how many regular cyclists get hurt. Otherwise countless non-cyclists dilute the useful information - if they don’t ride bikes, they aren’t at risk at all. And that’s not even taking into account locale. Different population densities,topographies, etc. have different risks. But we can set that aside for now as I think you likely get what I’m driving at there.
MRSA affects more specific demographics and conditions. Somebody who is older who contracts pneumonia and enters a hospital is far more likely than the average population to contract it - and it has a 10-20% lethality which is extremely high - so their risk has to be assessed in that context.
If we only compared it against the general population, then hospitals would simply go “well in the grand scheme of things not many people die of MRSA.“ When what they’re (correctly) saying is “if you are elderly and have pneumonia we need to really watch out for MRSA.” Because that is a real risk.
At 45 he’s not elderly but he’s within the range we see with MRSA unfortunately and pneumonia is a huge trigger for it (compromised immune system open to secondary infection). It’s incredibly resistant to antibiotics/cleaning supplies and is a real killer. Because hospitals clean so much it’s actually more likely to happen there than in “the real world“ because it gets selected out.
So he isn’t super young (least contributing factor), he has pneumonia (big contributing factor), and is in a hospital (where it almost exclusively occurs). His odds were higher than that of the general population the same way if you go skydiving you have a higher chance of dying from falling to your death than the average population.
I’ve already written out the numbers in multiple comments. 50,000-100,000 cases a year, 5,000-10,000 deaths a year. Not everyone gets pneumonia every year, not everyone is equally healthy/unhealthy or has other factors that can make it more likely, not everyone is the same age, etc. So you can’t just apply this to the entire country. What the exact number is is not critical to understanding that. For the same reason not everybody has to worry about being killed on their bike on the way to work. Because not everybody rides a bike to work. I don’t need to show you numbers for everything in the bike claim, it is true/obvious at face value. Unless we have reason to debate whether or not literally every person bikes to work. Do you see my point? Every American is not equally susceptible to contracting MRSA at any given time.
The number of cases and the number of deaths associated, as well pneumonia/MRSA infection/ while hospitalized, is well documented. You can find stuff from the NIH and beyond about this. It’s a very serious issue that hospitals have never been able to truly fix. A cursory search would show you this, I’m sure there are a dozen major articles you could find in no time.
I wasn’t going to say anything, but it does irritate me when people ask me to go do their research for them and then ghost after. At least have the decency to say you didn’t read it or blew it off.
What kind of question is that? I don’t even know how you would do the math on that or why you chose it. So, what? The odds that any 45-year-old at any given time will die within 75 days of turning 45? Or within some window of 75 days within the the 365 day period of being 45? The question is nonsensical. I’m not even sure what you were trying to answer.
There you have your answer. Now kindly piss off. You’ve ignored everything I’ve written and it’s clear you just don’t understand stats. It’s not a crime to not know it, but making up questions off the top of your head that don’t address the actual question we are asking is not productive and I am tired of wasting my time.
Yes if you’re including the entire population which is not how stats works as his demographic is exponentially more at risk than many others (age, onset of pneumonia, etc)
https://lemmy.world/comment/9809397
I admit I am not a stats guy. Please tell me what I did wrong in my math. Totally open to being corrected here.
You don’t just take the entire population and calculate the odds that they will contract and/or die of something. For instance, I could trivialize bike injuries/deaths in the US because countless people do not commute regularly on their bikes. Hell tens of millions don’t even have one and haven’t ridden a bike since they were children. The stat isn’t super useful unless we are discussing how many regular cyclists get hurt. Otherwise countless non-cyclists dilute the useful information - if they don’t ride bikes, they aren’t at risk at all. And that’s not even taking into account locale. Different population densities,topographies, etc. have different risks. But we can set that aside for now as I think you likely get what I’m driving at there.
MRSA affects more specific demographics and conditions. Somebody who is older who contracts pneumonia and enters a hospital is far more likely than the average population to contract it - and it has a 10-20% lethality which is extremely high - so their risk has to be assessed in that context.
If we only compared it against the general population, then hospitals would simply go “well in the grand scheme of things not many people die of MRSA.“ When what they’re (correctly) saying is “if you are elderly and have pneumonia we need to really watch out for MRSA.” Because that is a real risk.
At 45 he’s not elderly but he’s within the range we see with MRSA unfortunately and pneumonia is a huge trigger for it (compromised immune system open to secondary infection). It’s incredibly resistant to antibiotics/cleaning supplies and is a real killer. Because hospitals clean so much it’s actually more likely to happen there than in “the real world“ because it gets selected out.
So he isn’t super young (least contributing factor), he has pneumonia (big contributing factor), and is in a hospital (where it almost exclusively occurs). His odds were higher than that of the general population the same way if you go skydiving you have a higher chance of dying from falling to your death than the average population.
Ok can you give me an actual number?
I’ve already written out the numbers in multiple comments. 50,000-100,000 cases a year, 5,000-10,000 deaths a year. Not everyone gets pneumonia every year, not everyone is equally healthy/unhealthy or has other factors that can make it more likely, not everyone is the same age, etc. So you can’t just apply this to the entire country. What the exact number is is not critical to understanding that. For the same reason not everybody has to worry about being killed on their bike on the way to work. Because not everybody rides a bike to work. I don’t need to show you numbers for everything in the bike claim, it is true/obvious at face value. Unless we have reason to debate whether or not literally every person bikes to work. Do you see my point? Every American is not equally susceptible to contracting MRSA at any given time.
The number of cases and the number of deaths associated, as well pneumonia/MRSA infection/ while hospitalized, is well documented. You can find stuff from the NIH and beyond about this. It’s a very serious issue that hospitals have never been able to truly fix. A cursory search would show you this, I’m sure there are a dozen major articles you could find in no time.
I wasn’t going to say anything, but it does irritate me when people ask me to go do their research for them and then ghost after. At least have the decency to say you didn’t read it or blew it off.
I felt no need to respond because you twice didn’t answer the question I asked.
What are the odds that a 45 year old would die in a 75 day time period?
Just a simple number and how you got it. This is the third time I have asked.
What kind of question is that? I don’t even know how you would do the math on that or why you chose it. So, what? The odds that any 45-year-old at any given time will die within 75 days of turning 45? Or within some window of 75 days within the the 365 day period of being 45? The question is nonsensical. I’m not even sure what you were trying to answer.
There you have your answer. Now kindly piss off. You’ve ignored everything I’ve written and it’s clear you just don’t understand stats. It’s not a crime to not know it, but making up questions off the top of your head that don’t address the actual question we are asking is not productive and I am tired of wasting my time.