Skip to main content

Lies, damned lies - you know the rest

Every now and then you see the use of a number that takes your breath away in the total lack of intelligence in the way it is used. This particular misuse was described on last week's More or Less, the excellent Radio 4 show that specializes in naughty numbers, but it so startlingly stupid that I have to describe it too.

The sad thing is, the initial misuser appears to be Channel 4 News, which of the UK TV news shows is, I believe, the best - but, hey, everyone has their off days. The story was also picked up by a number of newspapers that should have known better. It concerned a contraceptive implant called Implanon. This uses slow release of hormones to provide contraception for up to three years. Channel 4 was horrified to discover that nearly 600 users had unwanted pregnancies. Shocking!

However, on its own, that number 600 (actually 584, but 600 is easier to publicize) is totally useless. How many is it 600 out of? How does this compare with the alternatives? Statistics always need context.

It turns out that this was 600 out of over a million. Now here's the little bit of information that Channel 4 omitted. This is vastly more effective than any other form of contraception - even male sterilization. It really is a superb success rate in contraception terms. Compare it with condoms - there the unwanted pregnancy rate with typical use is around 140,000 out of a million. Even with perfect use it's 30,000 per million.

The fact is, the story was 'Contraceptive implant is a huge success' but somehow that's not what Channel 4 and the medical-panic newspapers put across.

Context, chaps. Context.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope