But why would you think better nutrition and getting rid of rickets would get rid of *only* 90%? The rate in the US has not fallen by two orders of magnitude since the introduction of antibiotics and emergent C-sections, surely?
PS For the record, no, if you drop 90% of the 1 in 8 deaths, leaving 10% of them, you have 1 in 80 deaths.
PPS There are a lot of other relevant things besides nutrition, rickets, antibiotics and emergency c-sections of course, too - perhaps most notably, hygiene.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are doing, but I think it must be wrong since I'm confident what I did is right and they give different answers, QED :-) - unless of course the problem is that we're answering different questions. Why are you taking 90% of 8, I don't see what that's relevant to?
The question I'm answering is: suppose you have a society in which 1 in 8 women die in childbirth, and suppose that 90% of those deaths could be prevented by [...]. If 90% of those deaths *were* prevented by [...], what proportion of women would still die in childbirth?
Look at it like this: take 80 women. In the original situation, 1 in 8 of them, i.e. 10 women, die. Now suppose that improved nutrition and lack of rickets prevents 90% of maternal deaths. That is, 9 of the 10 women who would have died actually live; leaving 1 of the original 80 who still dies.
Hah! That's the number I had first, but I convinced myself I was taking 90% of the wrong number.
That's what I get for doing math in my head at 2 am. And previously while a child bounced up and down next to me saying "Can we play t-ball now Mama? now? now?" and then leaned over and started punching random keys on the laptop.
That's why I thought that both those links were so interesting -- the second one makes the point about inappropriate use quite nicely, and the first points up exactly how often use is appropriate and necessary.
I mean, crap. 1 in 8? If I were a living woman in Afghanistan with any appreciation of that risk I think I'd start walking until I got to just about anywhere else.
Comments 9
Reply
Reply
PPS There are a lot of other relevant things besides nutrition, rickets, antibiotics and emergency c-sections of course, too - perhaps most notably, hygiene.
Reply
Hygiene cures the childbed fever, certainly.
Reply
The question I'm answering is: suppose you have a society in which 1 in 8 women die in childbirth, and suppose that 90% of those deaths could be prevented by [...]. If 90% of those deaths *were* prevented by [...], what proportion of women would still die in childbirth?
Look at it like this: take 80 women. In the original situation, 1 in 8 of them, i.e. 10 women, die. Now suppose that improved nutrition and lack of rickets prevents 90% of maternal deaths. That is, 9 of the 10 women who would have died actually live; leaving 1 of the original 80 who still dies.
Or without the story, (1 - 9/10) * 1/8 = 1/80
Reply
That's what I get for doing math in my head at 2 am. And previously while a child bounced up and down next to me saying "Can we play t-ball now Mama? now? now?" and then leaned over and started punching random keys on the laptop.
Reply
Because like many such things, they are a two-edged sword, and have a downside. Having them available=good
Overusing them=bad
The problem i have with our medical culture is the "overuse".
Reply
I mean, crap. 1 in 8? If I were a living woman in Afghanistan with any appreciation of that risk I think I'd start walking until I got to just about anywhere else.
Reply
Leave a comment