A thought experiment... Is it possible tha the Walk for AIDS will result in enough new cases of HIV and AIDS to consume all the funds generated by the event?
Jun 6, 2008 11:58 AM
On Jun 3, 9:49 am, Paul Rubin <ru...@msu.edu> wrote: > the zak wrote: > > On Jun 1, 7:35 pm, Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulr...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:58:11 -0700 (PDT), the zak > > >> <don.sak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> A thought experiment... during the upcoming Walk for AIDS is it > >>> possible that one person will meet another who has HIV infection, > >>> whether they know it or not, and have sex? Is it possible that > >>> infection could be passed along to an uninfected person? Considering > >>> statistical information on the spread of HIV, could it happen at least > >>> one person after meeting another person during the AIDS walk will get > >>> infected? Two people? Three people? Four people? More? How much money > >>> is raised by the Walk for AIDS? How much does it cost for a person's > >>> treatment from when HIV infection is detected until death? > >>> Is it possible that the AIDS Walk will result in enough new cases of > >>> HIV and AIDS to consume all the funds generated by the event? > >> Nah, you have to look at something like what > >> the economists have as "opportunity costs". > > >> In this case -- If they weren't doing something healthy, > >> like "walking", wouldn't the worst of these folks be > >> hanging out in bars and taking drugs or finding sex > >> partners? > > >> I guess it is possible that the "healthy" affects of > >> outdoor activity might have a better health outcome > >> than whatever can be bought with the money raised.... > >> Seems to me you are 'way off base. > > >> -- > >> Rich Ulrich > > >>http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html > > > Would this explanation tell us why well-educamated and the > > well-economacated get no STDs? > > What makes you assume that??- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
The activity is irrelivant in the thought process:
Activity generates X dollars per participant There is a Y% chance that Z people at the activity will engage in an act that incurs $J amount of costs.
This is the identical problem being discussed with Ethanol production in figuring out how much fossil fuel is offset by ethanol production and use.
Ethanol being the money, Fossil fuel use in production of ethanol being the infection.
Does the generation of ethanol in fact offset the use of fossil fuels when fossil fuels are used in the production of ethanol.
Can the amount of money generated in a walk offset the the costs incurred by the walk (in the OP'er mindset, assuming an incurring of re-infection.)
The same mathmatical problem can be distilled to the quote:
"Is the cure worse then the disease."
Or the most simple concept of "ROI" base on the various inputs.
At what point, given the circumstances, does the activity return a profit (positive return).
For the original post there are various points that need to be addressed to get anywhere:
% of people infected % that are single % that are looking for sex % base chance of infection regessors that may impact infection age groupings of the samples $ cost per year of infection ($ in the first yearm $ in second year) $ generated per person in a walk
Given 10000 people raising $100 each with a 15% singles rate and 50% of that 15% actually looking for sex with a 60% chance of infection. We then apply a 40% infection rate to the participants.
Group the population of the 1000 into the 18-35,36-55,and 55+ groups then find your costs and work with the assumption that everyone lives to 75 years of age for the sake of costs. The longer you live with a dieases, the more cost you incur.
Potential regressors could be excericse, ethnic background, annual income, history of heart diease, etc.
Based on the OP I can only come to one conclusion based on the data, model chosen, and topic at hand:
The original post wasn't funny and based on the data and potential model the only sound conclusion is: Walks are to raise funds for researching cures and treatments, not paying for treatments.