undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmannykannot1y ago0 comments

> Then the entire medical industry is failing at communicating that.

Rebutting hypobolic extrapolations from literally one datum is still not something that the entire medical industry - or just my PCP and cardiologist, for that matter - should be prioritizing (unless they have a patient doing just that), even if the prevalence of such claims has increased over the last decade or so.

The afforementioned professionals had no reticence in taking my pre-40 symptoms of heart disease seriously, even though I did not present any of the correlates frequently associated with it.

0 comments

yieldcrv1y ago

many demographics have well studied issues of being validated at all

It’s not hyperbolic, it’s a relatable shared experience, which are the words I used for a reason. as its not a single datum, while also avoids any attempt to quantify it at all

mannykannotOP1y ago

Ipnon's claim was explicitly stated to follow from just one datum, thus:

>The main calculator used in the US to calculate 10-year risk of cardiovascular incident literally cannot compute scores for people under 40. There are two consequences to this....

And the first claim:

> If you are under 40 you will never encounter a physician who believes you are at risk of heart attack or stroke.

If that's not hyperbolic, where's your evidence that it even just close to being the case?

yieldcrv1y ago

yes, the word “never” is hyperbolic, while the words “relatable shared experience” are not

moving on

mannykannotOP1y ago

In this case, it would still be incorrect and uninformed if one were to substitute "frequently" or "routinely" for "always". The problem is not just a careless choice of qualifier.

I specifically directed my reply to you to where you had said, in response to Rscho's criticism of Ipon's hyperbolic claim, "then the entire medical industry is failing at communicating that", where "that" is what Rscho said in response to Ipon's hyperbole. I stand by my position that it can hardly be faulted for not preemptively responding to such nonsense, regardless of whatever you see/imagine as being relatable shared experiences.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

yieldcrv1y ago

many demographics have well studied issues of being validated at all

It’s not hyperbolic, it’s a relatable shared experience, which are the words I used for a reason. as its not a single datum, while also avoids any attempt to quantify it at all

mannykannotOP1y ago

Ipnon's claim was explicitly stated to follow from just one datum, thus:

>The main calculator used in the US to calculate 10-year risk of cardiovascular incident literally cannot compute scores for people under 40. There are two consequences to this....

And the first claim:

> If you are under 40 you will never encounter a physician who believes you are at risk of heart attack or stroke.

If that's not hyperbolic, where's your evidence that it even just close to being the case?

yieldcrv1y ago

yes, the word “never” is hyperbolic, while the words “relatable shared experience” are not

moving on

mannykannotOP1y ago

In this case, it would still be incorrect and uninformed if one were to substitute "frequently" or "routinely" for "always". The problem is not just a careless choice of qualifier.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse