Perplexed comments on Open Thread, September, 2010-- part 2 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: NancyLebovitz 17 September 2010 01:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (858)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (858)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Perplexed 21 September 2010 09:01:20PM 0 points [-]

I'm confused - the table says "assuming no condom use".

What table in what document says that?

So you're talking about other data

I'm talking about the data I said I am talking about: this paper and this piece of primary research which states

Trial participants were enrolled as individuals; provided written, informed consent; and were guaranteed confidentiality. Condoms and voluntary HIV counseling and testing, for individuals and for couples, were promoted and provided free of charge. ... Antiretroviral therapy (ART) was not available in Uganda at the time of the study, but participants were offered free general health care and treatment for opportunistic infections.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 09:24:39PM 0 points [-]

The original table in the top-level comment. I guess you're off on a tangent then.

Comment author: Perplexed 21 September 2010 09:33:16PM -1 points [-]

I repeat. What table in what top-level comment? WTF is a "top-level comment?"

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 21 September 2010 09:42:57PM *  0 points [-]

The top-level comment of this thread. Comments are nested. Click parent enough times and you're at a top-level comment. I'm surprised the name is confusing to you.

As for the table, it's linked in the top-level comment:

This data is from wikipedia

I can see how you would have missed this link.

The linked table is clearly labeled and indicates that the risk is supposed to be for not using a condom. The table has the same figures as the "Table 1" appearing as an image in a nested comment by satt, which has the same indication. I doubt you missed that.

Given that you appear to be discussing the cites referenced in the table, I'm puzzled as to why you think condom use is implied. Are you saying the table is wrong, or are you talking about some other part of the cite than was used to build it?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit