Over 50's club

323 watchers

DocMoye Apr 2019 5:34pm, 17 Apr 2019 27,602 posts	0 DocMoye Welcome TeeBee. Great to have you on here.
um Apr 2019 5:55pm, 17 Apr 2019 858 posts	0 um Welcome TeeBee ... seems we all end up here eventually ... (but it's probably better than the alternative, with or without bacon)
DocMoye Apr 2019 6:13pm, 17 Apr 2019 27,606 posts	0 DocMoye Life's too short to give up bacon.
57.5 Degrees of Pain Apr 2019 6:16pm, 17 Apr 2019 4,594 posts	0 57.5 Degrees of Pain Dons po faced Epidemiologist hat: You would probably be better explaining why pinpointing single risk factors for disease in something as complex as the human body is a difficult process that is almost always reported wrongly in the press V'rap, rather than dissing the science. And the controls are people who do not eat the bacon GregP. In a large study they have found that differences in disease outcome can be detected even among those who eat as little as one bacon rasher. Those who eat more would presumably fare worse. Hat off again. It's a lovely evening. I am going outside to sit and consume several items that could shorten my life!
macca 53 Apr 2019 6:28pm, 17 Apr 2019 26,855 posts	0 macca 53 Personally I’m waiting to see how the configuration of orchestras changes, or whether anyone within a radius of (say) 5m is required to wear hearing protection......
jda Apr 2019 6:38pm, 17 Apr 2019 4,302 posts	0 jda Though if you eat it as a bacon sandwich, the fibre in the bread offsets some of that (very small) additional risk
GlennR Apr 2019 7:03pm, 17 Apr 2019 42,011 posts	0 GlennR 57.5 Degrees, I for one will unashamedly diss the science in this and similar studies, since in my view they are a waste of resources, in part a consequence of the very difficulty in constructing the study. Unless these investigations are likely to result in a significant change in public policy and/or human behaviour, then the money would be better spent elsewhere. Incidentally, this is not simply a question of bad reporting in the media. As David Spiegelhalter has pointed out, the WHO's International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) has done this before: "This appalling bit of science communication happens every time the IARC makes an announcement about carcinogenicity, but they never seem to learn."
jda Apr 2019 7:10pm, 17 Apr 2019 4,303 posts	0 jda GlennR, it is not always easy to predict the likelihood of a change in policy or behaviour, prior to the study taking place And to be fair, that quote from Spiegelhalter relates to a previous announcement some time ago which specifically did not talk about the magnitude of the risk. OTOH this coverage does suffer from not making clear that the increased risk is still very small in absolute terms, around one extra case per thousand against a background rate of about 5 IIRC. And it's worth bearing in mind that the all-cause fatality rate has remained stubbornly high at one thousand cases per thousand, despite advances in nutrition and medical science...
Flatlander Apr 2019 7:13pm, 17 Apr 2019 1,424 posts	0 Flatlander
GlennR Apr 2019 7:14pm, 17 Apr 2019 42,013 posts	0 GlennR Ah, jda, but have you seen this: Pig brains partially revived four hours after death bbc.co.uk