Dumb Dumb Dumb

It's interesting and intriguing how some people spread ignorant hearsays or ask stupid questions on forums or blog posts, when things could have been easily verified or answered by googling or wiki-ing.

Isn't the complacency dangerous?


p/s: Some might contend that wikipedia is not always accurate, but from my personal experience it's usually much accurate than most hearsays.

Of Red Hands and Sore Feet

There's only one way of receiving hundreds of thank-yous in one morning by clapping your hand mad - be a volunteer at a marathon Event.

There's also only one way of seeing dozens of fuming drivers who complained about blocked roads while not knowing how to reply. Be a volunteer at a marathon event.

Today I was amazed and embarrassed at the same time - I saw so many people who were much older but were running much faster than myself. I estimated there to be around dozens of elderly who were running at a pace of 12 - 16 km/h, while I shuffled last time for 15km at about 8.2 km/h. Paiseh niah.

While it's a good source of inspiration, standing for five hours took its toll on me. I am so exhausted.

Making The Right Choice

Everyday we are confronted with numerous occasions which call for decision-making, and quite often the decisions are related to numbers.

For example, given two options of sugar in a supermarket,

• A one-kilogram package which costs one dollar,
• A five-kilogram package which costs four dollars.

Which one would you buy?

Some people reckon that the latter is the better choice, since it is "just eighty cents per kilo". However, some others might say that the former is better because you do not risk the sugar expiring before you finish it, the quality might deteriorate if it's left for too long, "you do not need five kilograms anyway", and so on. Well, there's no clear winning side here, as each pros and cons are weighed differently by different people.

On another occasion, a similar dilemma arose in the issue of tram tickets. As a background, there are a few choices for the prepaid tram tickets, namely two-hourly tickets, daily, and 10 X two-hour. Daily is out of the question because it could be replaced by an equivalent of two two-hourly tickets. So We could buy separate two-hourly tickets (which cost 3.30 dollar each) or buy a ticket with 10 two-hourly values (which costs 27.60 dollar).

Naturally, 10 X two-hourly ticket seems to be the best option. But here comes the real problem - how many of them should we buy? We know very well that there is a price increase every year or two, so if we stock up the tickets we would not need to buy expensive tickets in the future. However, buying lots of tickets turned out not to be the best choice after all - we figured out that at the present rate of bank interest and the predicted price increase every year, we might as well buy the ticket after the price increase, because by that time the bank interest we earn would have covered the price difference. It's quite a bit of tricky maths.

The last case I would like to talk about here is related to medicine. You might think, hey, what does medicine have to do with mathematics? Is it the doctor's bills? Hah let me reassure you that billing is not the main use of maths in medicine. As I mentioned in another post, a lot of medical researches deal with epidemiology and statistics which involve a lot of mathematical application.

Amidst the figures of risks, benefits, odds, ratios and so on, it's very common for people to be misled by default or by design. Take this example:

They [Tom Fahey and colleagues] wrote to 182 board members of district health authorities in England (all of whom would be in some way responsible for making important health service decisions), asking them which of four different rehabilitation programmes for heart attack victims they would prefer to fund:

• Programme A reduced the rate of deaths by 20%;
• Programme B produced an absolute reduction in deaths of 3%;
• Programme C increased patients' survival rate from 84% to 87%;
• Programme D meant that 31 people needed to enter the programme to avoid one death.

"How to Read a Paper" by Trisha Greenhalgh, 1997

Before you read on, give it a second of thought - which one would you choose? Which one is the most effective, and which one is the least effective?

The book author, Greenhalgh, proceeded to tell us the right answer: all of them are describing the same effect. Many of the health authorities (and I believe many of us as well) didn't notice it:

Of the 140 board members who responded, only three spotted that all four "programmes" in fact related to the same set of results. The other 137 preferred one or other of the programmes, thus revealing (as well as their own ignorance) the need for better basic training in epidemiology for health authority board members.

As a numerical example, let's say when the patients do not enter any program, 84 out of 100 patients survived; while for the rehabilitation program, 87 out of 100 patients survived. Rate of death is reduced from 16% to 13%, and therefore:

• A) It's a (16-13/16) X 100% ≈ 20% death reduction .
• B) The absolute death reduction is 16% - 13% = 3%.
• C) From the figure directly.
• D) Since the absolute death reduction is 3%, it means that 3 out of 100 patients have benefited through the rehabilitation program. That ratio is equivalent to 1 in 30 patients saved (rounded to the nearest ten, considering the significant digits).

It's amazing just how manipulable our mind is when it comes to numbers. The next time when you see a promotion claiming "buy two free one", remember that it's equivalent to 33% discount. For some reasons, "buy two free one" might seem more attractive to certain people than, say, 40% discount.

Errm.

At the Hospital Entrance

Everyday I enter the hospital early in the morning and leave for home in late afternoon. There's this hospital main entrance which I pass through everyday. Guess what I see every time as I pass through that area?

Smokers.

Or to be precise, a number of patients, some on wheelchairs, some with their drips on, who come out to have a puff.

Also, the ground in front of the hospital is littered with cigarette butts.

Isn't it ironic?


p/s: I have no prejudice against smokers (in particular, their choosing to smoke / not able to pull out from the habit despite knowing the adverse effects). This post is just reflecting on the irony of having smokers crowding a hospital entrance. I am in no way judgmental towards patients based no their smoking habit.

Pathetic Parents

At around 7am this morning, when I was walking to the hospital, I saw this family where the parents pushed their little baby on a pram for what appeared to be a morning walk. They seemed to be such lovely parents, and I told myself that I will emulate them when I become a parent in the future.

The next second, some smoke found its way and wafted into my nose. Naturally, I looked for the source of the nuisance. I literally recoiled when my eyes met the sight - the dad was puffing away on a cigarette, and the mum is enjoying one herself too. They seemed to be pretty engrossed in their conversation, and while they enjoyed their outing, the baby slept calmly, being totally unaware of the health hazards his parents were exposing him to.

How pathetic.

I am not a proponent of draconian legalism, but for a moment I seriously thought that we should punish parents who jeopardize their little kid's health irresponsibly. They don't deserve to be parents.

For a second, I also thought about something: Is it ever appropriate for a person (like myself) to approach the parents and advise them about their irresponsible deed? As a medical student? And if/when I become a doctor in the future, is there a moral obligation, and is it socially appropriate for such an advice?

Regardless, pathetic is the word of the day. Pathetic parents with a pitiful kid.


Image credit: 'Healthy' children with smoking parents aren't really so healthy

How Do You Pronounce It?

One thing Malaysians would notice when they are overseas, is how drastically different our pronunciation of certain words is compared to the foreigners. If we spend most of our time in Malaysia, I guess we wouldn't even know that we have pronounced it the wrong way all along:

• Species - We call it "spee-sis", they call it "spee-shees"
• Waffles - We call it "way-fers", they call it "woa-fers"
• Samples - We call it "sam-pers", they call it "some-pers"
• Tartare - We call it "tar-tar", they call it "tar-tare"

For the last one, when I asked for tartare sauce to go with fish and chip the other day, I pronounced it the Malaysian way and got a blank look. To add to my embarrassment, another customer in the line kindly clarified it for me, "Oh, he meant tar-tare sauce!" =.="

Anyway, can you think of more examples of wrong English pronunciation by Malaysians?

Don't You Love Paris Hilton?

"Someone you met in prison?" :D

via Digg - David Letterman destroys Paris Hilton