Saturday, February 23, 2019

Statistics on Measles

Here is the next installment of "By the Numbers" on the topic of Measles and Vaccines.



Reported measles cases in the U.S.  Actual number of cases is higher than reported.  The inset shows the recent uptick of cases.

For every 1,000 cases of measles, expect:
·   250 hospitalizations
·   100 ear infections
·   100 cases of diarrhea
·   20 cases of pneumonia
·   1.5 deaths
·   1 case of encephalitis
Known Side Effects
·   Soreness at injection site
·   4 in 10,000 experience febrile seizures
·   0 cases of autism

Other Facts:
·   Vaccine is 97% effective
·   90-95% inoculation rate is required for heard immunity

Thursday, February 7, 2019

The Honesty of the Media and Politicians


The honesty and accuracy of politicians and news networks as of January 2019 based on factchecking of their own words.  The truthfulness of individual politicians and news networks varies little over time.  Source for data: politifact.com.

Monday, February 4, 2019

Veganism does not work for everyone

My editorial about diet just appeared in our local paper.  Here is is:

Gruesome reports of animal cruelty are reason enough to be critical of the food industry. We should treat other creatures humanely and the prevention of animal suffering is a worthy moral imperative that trumps preference or convenience. Becoming a vegan or a vegetarian decreases the demand for animal products and publicizing the plight of animals in the food industry is a good strategy for getting converts.
These editorial pages routinely see letters from animal rights advocates who point out the health and environmental benefits of removing animal products from our diets. Mack Davison ("Letter: Replacing Obamacare," Jan. 18, 2017) cites studies that find "consumption of animal protein is associated with higher risk of death." He then makes several questionable leaps to conclude the consumption of animal products is the root cause of our society's medical problems. This conclusion is at odds with the work he cites.
The 2016 JAMA Internal Medicine study he refers to concludes the slight elevated risk of death associated with consuming animal protein only applied to participants who had at least one other factor associated with unhealthy lifestyle, such as obesity or smoking. When these other unhealthy factors are eliminated, no correlation with increased mortality remains. Each of us has the right to study the data and choose a morally defensible lifestyle that works for us. I have made weight loss through a low carb diet my primary health strategy, so I eat lots of meat.
My data: I lost almost 50 pounds (body mass index is now 23) by consuming less than 10 percent of my calories from carbohydrates and getting fat from eating mostly meat, cheese, eggs and dairy products. As a result, my cholesterol ratio (total to HDL) dropped from 7.8 to 3.4 (see the plot at tinyurl.com/jg7r2uz). In addition, my blood pressure fell from 148/87 to 119/69; my resting heart rate is now at or below 50 bpm; chronic migraines disappeared; insomnia improved; heartburn gone; physical stamina greatly enhanced; and Simpson's diversity index of my gut microbiome is 7.92, more diverse than 69 percent of the general population and most vegetarians.
A new trial that is consistent with my own data reports on a highly controlled study where researchers fed 167 adults all of their daily meals and snacks for 20 weeks, while closely tracking their body weight and a number of biological markers such as metabolism with doubly labeled water (see https://tinyurl.com/ycvnzh6g). After five months on the diet, the subjects' bodies burned 250 calories more per day than people who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet with the same number of calories.
My goal is not to proselytize, but to stress freedom of personal choice in what we eat, free from criticism by others who disagree, especially if good health results. The human body is a complex biochemical system that responds differently to diet from one person to another, and the low carb high fat diet has worked for me for decades. I felt awful on a vegetarian diet, weight loss was elusive, I was constantly hungry, and my health markers remained mediocre.
Though a meat eater, I am sympathetic to the animals that suffer to accommodate my lifestyle, so I am willing to pay more for meat to offset the burden that my actions impose on animals and the environment. In return, I ask that animal rights groups and vegans respect my choices and refrain from advocating for the elimination of all animal food products and misrepresenting the data.
Davison ("Letter: Consider reducing your meat consumption," March 23) extols the virtues of a vegan diet and the promise of mass production of faux meat. The Aug. 25 issue of the Daily News ran an article on vegetable-based "meats" that focused on taste. My concern is not that these alternatives taste like meat, which seems to be an emphasis of R&D in this industry, rather I need the nutritional contents and fat, protein, and carbohydrate composition to match that of animal meat. Only then would I embrace artificial meats unless they are found to be unhealthy, as have so many artificial foods. For now, I need my meat, and cannot accept Nick Gier's challenge to become a vegan ("His View: Progress on animal rights around the world," Jan. 31). Perhaps I will be forgiven since I am pro-choice.

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

By the Numbers II

My second column of "By the Numbers" appeared today in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, shown below:

Temperature* [red points], ice extent fraction in northern hemisphere* [blue squares] and millions of tons of CO2 produced by humans+ [black diamonds]. Solar cycles and volcanic activity have been determined to have a negligible effect on warming.*
* 2017 Climate Science Report USGCRP 2017
+  US Department of Energy

Saturday, January 5, 2019

By the Numbers

More often than not, debate is not informed by data, especially if it originates form a clash between ideologies.  In response, I started a new semi-regular piece in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News that I call "By the Numbers,"  where I present data in the form of a plot or table on a topical subject.  It appears in the spot often used for political comics in the opinion section, but does not espouse an opinion. Below is my submission that appeared in the January 3, 2019 issue.


Obama vs Trump Stock Performance
Percentage change of S&P 500 from inauguration day to the end of the second calendar year of the presidential term.  Net change: Obama Term #1: +56.2%.  Obama Term #2: +38.6%.  Trump: +10.4%.  Aside from the crash around Day 50 following the burst housing bubble, the performance of the S&P 500 for both Obama terms exceeded Trump’s market performance to date

We all know that correlation does not imply causation, so such a graph of stock performance is not an indication of a president's success in economic policy.  But since Trump uses the stock market as a measure of his success, I thought it would be useful to show the actual data.  By Trump's own measure, he pales in comparison to Obama.

Stay tuned for more data.