On Jun 3, 9:49=A0am, Paul Rubin <ru...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> the zak wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 7:35 pm, Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:58:11 -0700 (PDT), the zak
>
> >> <don.sak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> A thought experiment... during the upcoming Walk for AIDS is it
> >>> possible that one person will meet another who has HIV infection,
> >>> whether they know it or not, and have ***? Is it possible that
> >>> infection could be passed along to an uninfected person? Considering
> >>> statistical information on the spread of HIV, could it happen at
least=
> >>> one person after meeting another person during the AIDS walk will
get
> >>> infected? Two people? Three people? Four people? More? How much
money
> >>> is raised by the Walk for AIDS? How much does it cost for a person's
> >>> treatment from when HIV infection is detected until death?
> >>> Is it possible that the AIDS Walk will result in enough new cases of
> >>> HIV and AIDS to consume all the funds generated by the event?
> >> Nah, you have to look at something like what
> >> the economists have as "op****tunity costs".
>
> >> In this case -- If they weren't doing something healthy,
> >> like "walking", wouldn't the worst of these folks be
> >> hanging out in bars and taking drugs or finding ***
> >> partners?
>
> >> I guess it is possible that the "healthy" affects of
> >> outdoor activity might have a better health outcome
> >> than whatever can be bought with the money raised....
> >> Seems to me you are 'way off base.
>
> >> --
> >> Rich Ulrich
>
> >>http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Would this explanation tell us why well-educamated and the
> > =A0 =A0 =A0well-economacated get no STDs?
>
> What makes you assume that??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The activity is irrelivant in the thought process:
Activity generates X dollars per participant
There is a Y% chance that Z people at the activity will engage in an
act that incurs $J amount of costs.
This is the identical problem being discussed with Ethanol production
in figuring out how much fossil fuel is offset by ethanol production
and use.
Ethanol being the money, Fossil fuel use in production of ethanol
being the infection.
Does the generation of ethanol in fact offset the use of fossil fuels
when fossil fuels are used in the production of ethanol.
Can the amount of money generated in a walk offset the the costs
incurred by the walk (in the OP'er mindset, assuming an incurring of
re-infection.)
The same mathmatical problem can be distilled to the quote:
"Is the cure worse then the disease."
Or the most simple concept of "ROI" base on the various inputs.
At what point, given the cir***stances, does the activity return a
profit (positive return).
For the original post there are various points that need to be
addressed to get anywhere:
% of people infected
% that are single
% that are looking for ***
% base chance of infection
regessors that may impact infection
age groupings of the samples
$ cost per year of infection ($ in the first yearm $ in second year)
$ generated per person in a walk
Given 10000 people raising $100 each with a 15% singles rate and 50%
of that 15% actually looking for *** with a 60% chance of infection.
We then apply a 40% infection rate to the participants.
Group the population of the 1000 into the 18-35,36-55,and 55+ groups
then find your costs and work with the assumption that everyone lives
to 75 years of age for the sake of costs. The longer you live with a
dieases, the more cost you incur.
Potential regressors could be excericse, ethnic background, annual
income, history of heart diease, etc.
Based on the OP I can only come to one conclusion based on the data,
model chosen, and topic at hand:
The original post wasn't funny and based on the data and potential
model the only sound conclusion is: Walks are to raise funds for
researching cures and treatments, not paying for treatments.
|
