Did ya? Are you glad you did??

[JohnD]

just to check, you're looking at the page that says "On the basis of reported rates of mother-to-child transmission of HCV, this would represent approximately 70 paediatric HCV infections per year."

I wonder why motman thinks this has something to do with the collapse of our underfunded NHS.

 

[Ian H]

Sorry your interpretation is incorrect. The UK born, and the continental born women were already separated.
The article states clearly: "51% of ... UK-born women, and 22% in women from continental Europe"
The percentage of the population of the different groups has no bearing.

Are you sure? You might be right, or i’m reading it wrong.

51% of maternal HCV infections were in UK-born women (71% of the population), and 22% in women from continental Europe (5% of the population)

I’m reading that as 52% of all infections come from 71% of the population with the 22% coming from 5% of the population.

 

[durhamplumber]

Are you sure? You might be right, or i’m reading it wrong.



I’m reading that as 52% of all infections come from 71% of the population with the 22% coming from 5% of the population.

jeez,,lets dance around on head of a pin about stats.

 

[Doppleganger]

Are you sure? You might be right, or i’m reading it wrong.



I’m reading that as 52% of all infections come from 71% of the population with the 22% coming from 5% of the population.

The article states unequivocally 52% in UK born women and 22% in continental women.

 

[Ian H]

The article states unequivocally 52% in UK born women and 22% in continental women.

Only if you edit out the bits in brackets that compare the figures to the population.

 

[Doppleganger]

just to check, you're looking at the page that says "On the basis of reported rates of mother-to-child transmission of HCV, this would represent approximately 70 paediatric HCV infections per year."

I wonder why motman thinks this has something to do with the collapse of our underfunded NHS.

Yes

 

[Doppleganger]

Only if you edit out the bits in brackets that compare the figures to the population.

And if you read the article.
"Demographic data were linked to neonatal samples prior to anonymization and testing".

There's no editing required, the percentage is purely for interest. The article states unequivocally.......etc.

If you purchase the research paper you could go down to the real data.

But people don't believe government forecasts why should they believe research papers?

 

[Ian H]

And if you read the article.
"Demographic data were linked to neonatal samples prior to anonymization and testing".

There's no editing required, the percentage is purely for interest. The article states unequivocally.......etc.

Surely the percentage is the demographic data.

What your quote above says is that the samples were marked as UK, Europe or other, and then tested. It doesn’t say the samples were separated into birth countries and then tested.

Either way, it’s poorly written or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

If it said ‘There were 1,000 confirmed cases of the infection that year. Of those 1,000 cases we found 51% of women were UK born and 22% of them were Europe born’ then it would be clear. But either way, that’s what I think it says.

 

[Doppleganger]

Surely the percentage is the demographic data.

What your quote above says is that the samples were marked as UK, Europe or other, and then tested. It doesn’t say the samples were separated into birth countries and then tested.

The demographics were marked, i.e separated into UK born, continental Europe born, or other, then the samples were tested. They would not know which were positive until after the tests! The results are as applied to each group of samples.
The statement 51% of UK born women and 22% of continental Europe born is unequivocal.

For your interpretation to stand the samples would have to be aggregated again after testing, or the demographics not linked until after testing.
But we will continue to disagree.
Either way going back to John's comment:

just to check, you're looking at the page that says "On the basis of reported rates of mother-to-child transmission of HCV, this would represent approximately 70 paediatric HCV infections per year."
I wonder why motman thinks this has something to do with the collapse of our underfunded NHS.

It does not justify motman's hysteria:

If you knew the amount of those with Hepatitis that are serving you up your food, you'd not eat a takeaway again. Nearly every pregnant women from one particular European country has it ... It costs a fortune to treat them alone.

 

[Ian H]

But we will continue to disagree.

 

[Mottie]

Here’s some more facts for you to disagree with. The Hep treatment costs the NHS just over £100 per daily pill. It’s a 3 month course and approximately 10% of the whole clinic are UK born patients. That’s not in line with the population breakdown, is it?

 

[Brigadier]

Here’s some more facts for you to disagree with. The Hep treatment costs the NHS just over £100 per daily pill. It’s a 3 month course and approximately 10% of the whole clinic are UK born patients. That’s not in line with the population breakdown, is it?

That's alright, I'm sure Diane Abacus has costed the £750 per annum it'll cost

 

[durhamplumber]

Here’s some more facts for you to disagree with. The Hep treatment costs the NHS just over £100 per daily pill. It’s a 3 month course and approximately 10% of the whole clinic are UK born patients. That’s not in line with the population breakdown, is it?

Why do you single out hepatitis?...which form of hep we talking?.I would not want my food prepared by anyone with anything transmittable,but fact of life,probably half the population have some dodgy transmittable disease.Thats why we have hygiene standards and immune systems.You sounding like the hysterical hiv people of the 80s.You suggest everyone wears a spacesuit?Or we stop treating "foreigners"

 

[Ian H]

He giving an example that he’s been told about by someone who knows.

 

[Doppleganger]

Here’s some more facts for you to disagree with.

"Facts" according to the person who thought that EU citizens are bankrupting the NHS?
"Facts" according to the person who refuses to believe the governor of the BoE and the Chancellor about the costs of Brexit?
"Facts" according to the person who is content to suffer the costs of Brexit which he refuses to believe will be incurred?

Please do show us the source of your "facts".