You must log in or register to comment.
In the UK where everyone has decent basic health care on average you live 2 years shorter if you own a horse. It’s worse than riding a motorcycle (1 year shorter). It turns out that owning a big animal that will kick you if you look at it funny or throw you off if it gets startled by a packet of crisps in the road isn’t that great for your health.
You don’t typically have a horse without money.
Typically all horses have no money. What would a horse even do with it anyway. And they don’t even have pockets to put in it.
saddlebags
Touche
My wife’s family would be the atypical version. Income wise they were below the poverty limit, but because they farmed a quarter section in N. Alberta they had lots of horses.
Also, if you own horses, you’re probably going out to take care of them on a daily basis, which means you get at least a little bit of mild exercise every day. That would help a lot, compared to people who are entirely sedentary.
Jr researchers are using AI to comb through cancer research datanases and every time they come back with data linking racial minority to worse outcomes or faster tumor progression, and proposals to review genetic differences.
Never does it link that non rich people don’t go to a doctor unless it’s very bad, and so present at later stages of cancer, and can’t afford the better personalized treatments.
The entire world of dog cancer research has recently collapsed not because there aren’t researchers invested in the work or that there aren’t clinical trials available, it’s that dog owners can’t afford to even travel to clinical sites for treatment.
It’s heartbreaking
Never does it link that non rich people don’t go to a doctor unless it’s very bad, and so present at later stages of cancer, and can’t afford the better personalized treatments.
Also…
-
Poor people are more likely to work in dangerous industrial jobs that expose them to carcinogens.
-
Poor people are more likely to work outside, where they’re exposed to high levels of UV, causing skin cancers.
-
Poor people are more likely to live in less desirable places, which may be located closer to industrial sites that spread carcinogenic waste into the air and water.
-
Poor people are more likely to eat highly processed foods that increase cancer risk.
-
Poor people are more likely to be obese, which increases cancer risk.
-
Poor people are more likely to smoke and/or be exposed to second-hand smoke.
-
Poor people are more likely to have high stress levels, which increases cancer risk.
There’s a million different non-genetic reasons why racial minorities (who tend to be poorer) would have higher cancer rates.
-
All these comments are great, but the real mystery is:
Why did someone overlay a different font on top of the original graphic rather than just make a whole new graphic? Like, the work is exactly the same, and the rest of us can view sane font placement.
because changing 1 word is less work than changing the whole text?
deleted by creator
Depends on the country.
Removed by mod
Just remember, you’ll always be third to a horse girl after her daddy’s money and her horse.
She’s really good on top, though.
Tru dat.
No, she’s not. The horse does most of the work.
Nah. Horse girls have got to learn how to keep up with the rhythm and roll their hips. Sure, the horse does most of the work, but they’re still doing some work … work that’s very applicable to other activities as well.
I married a horse girl, she rode well
She also hated being a parent and left me and our daughter
Everyone that isn’t a tool already realizes the differences between causation and correlation.
Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Many literal scientists assume the correlations they find are causative without much thought. Definitely a pervasive problem the assumption of correlations as causations.
they will pay for it. every single person who mistakes causation and correlation will die!
The real reason though, those scientist trained hacks are signing on to what they are paid to, to design studies to work backwards from poisoning the population is actually totally safe.
But yes.
The other month in our field some random team published a paper where they surveyed people sick with a chronic illness and people who had recovered from that illness. They found the recovered people had better mental health than those who were ill.
The authors in all their wisdom decided that means mental health causes the illness. It apparently didn’t cross their mind that being chronically ill is not fun so you have worse mental health and being recovered is comparatively great so you have better mental health.
Now some right wing chuds are citing this silly study to try and paint the illness as fake.
“Guys! It’s the scientists who are bad!” said the smartest person in the room
A point which he arrived at through correlation, without citing any causation.
Curious.
Gtfo of here, we should all know trade groups hire agencies to construct studies from it’s cool to reach that conclustion.
You are either ignorant and given to trolling people you think (often incorrectly,) have made some offense, or a fucking moron.
Now piss off.
“Some studies are done with funding contingent on a certain result, therefore all science is junk and science as an institution is untrustworthy”
Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Yeah, that’s the thing.
There are pockets of people who are clued in and take the time / have the time to process what they read/see & hear. Those people seem to be fewer and harder to find.
I don’t think people are generally just plain dumb (I know unpopular opinion), but I think a good majority of us are in sensory and informational overload and human understanding of the world has likely never been so complex nor moved so quickly.
This is all happening during a modern renaissance period for malicious misrepresentation (i.e. convincing lies). And even if people are too “dumb” to tell truth from lies, they do recognize that the lies are coming in rapid fire and from every direction. Easier just to tune out and not think too much about all that, otherwise it’s depressing.
Don’t forget that older folks are aging into cognitive issues, younger people have only known this as their reality, poor people are struggling to make ends meet with no time to stop and think, and so many of the ones who’ve “made it” are doing their best to keep it all conveniently compartmentalized away and out of sight.
So, yes, sometimes you do have to be direct and spell otherwise obvious things out for people. The struggle is real.
This is a case where it’s obvious there’s no direct causation, but so often it’s not this clear, and even the really smart people sometimes mess that part up – intentionally or otherwise.
In the civilized world, you don’t need to struggle for health care.
I guess the US is not a civilized world. Makes sense since they had “gladiator-like” fights on the South Lawn.
Implied Causation #2: health insurance has a bearing on longer life
Health insurance doesn’t equal Healthcare
Implied Causation #3: Health insurance isn’t effective at insuring health, thus the implied causation needs to be explicitly noted
Shiiit for a second I thought that said “Implied Caucasian”
Removed by mod
I’ll just leave this right here.
camden does kinda sound like an out-of-this-world name now that i think about it
Magical domesticated equine!
reality:
well, here in austria, if i’m correctly informed, there is free healthcare for anyone under 27, or anyone who has a job. everyone else can (has to?) get private insurance, for which they have to pay out of pocket.
