I feel comparing it to swimming pools might not be the right metric. The don’t get medicine from a pool and I don’t measure things in pools. Also, how big are these pools and do I even have a sense of the size of that?
No, pools are a bad choice.
I feel comparing it to swimming pools might not be the right metric. The don’t get medicine from a pool and I don’t measure things in pools. Also, how big are these pools and do I even have a sense of the size of that?
No, pools are a bad choice.
For those metric people who can't understand the units used here, it's an intuitive 187.5 megaliters.
Thanks! I don't have any idea how big a 'swimming pool' is, but one cubic meter of water contains 1000 liters so 187 mliters is actually helpful in providing understanding how big it is.
Right, most people have never seen a swimming pool, have no sense of its size, and can't visualize it. But everybody instantly knows what 187,000 cubic meters looks like.
Swimming pools are different and often built according to external constraints like building size or plot size, while 187000 cubic meters look loke a line 187 kilometers long 1 meter high and 1 meter in width. For me personally that's a |ot easier to visualize than a 'swimming pool' of water. Small lake can contain millions liters of water easily, same with pools.
An Olympic swimming pool is 0.05km long, by 0.025km wide, by 0.002km deep, which, certainly, is not nearly as relatable to everyday experience for most people as 187km.
Glad that we agree on this! 👍🏽
Anyway swimming pool and olimpic pool are different things and again it's really hard to eyeball volumes of water while it's really easy to approximate distance. Most people are at least somewhat aware of distance to the nearest bus stop, or town, or city. E.g. I know that distance to the next city is ~20 km.
Uh oh—you've just related a quantity to a sensory experience, exactly what the National Pharmacy Association did in order to quickly relate a large quantity to most people's numerical intuition without requiring them to do math. (Sure, it's not precise, and 75 swimming pools is probably not enough to converge on the mean volume for swimming pools, but what are you calculating that's relevant to the issue?)
1 Distance to the Next City is not in the metric system!
Yes, and? It's familiar and universal, swimming pools aren't.
That is, uh, quite the claim.
Its how people think really, when someone builds a house and needs foundation (for example) they don't use 37 bathtubs or 1,5 swimming pools of concrete, they use cubic metres. When someone trains they don't use 1 to 2 donkey of weight, they use actual measurable easily weights. When someone travel they don't travel 17000 snakelengths to another country. You can imagine all of these measuremental aids without problems, and they are relatable and known to any child. They just sound ridiculous and nonsensical and don't actually convey anything that can't be used interchangably with 'a lot'.
No, it's just not how people think, and there's good scientific research to back that up. Our numerical intuition doesn't do large numbers, that's why we have representational systems like decimal notation, and it has to be developed. We have to be learn even basics, like that 3 × 7 = 21; numbers like 100,000 cubic metres fall into the mental category of "large," unless you put in the mental effort to break that down into column 1m by 1m that stretches from your city to the next 5 times.
Journalists, and the NPA in this case, are going for a visceral impact. What's this irrelevant talk of building a foundation? Were they publishing blueprints, or an engineering brief? Or even a context in which precise quantities matter? No, it was an article about wasted medication in England, and they exactly did want a quick way to convey "a lot", and since most people in Britain do know what a swimming pool looks like, it's an apt visual metaphor. (By the way, 17,000 snakes would be a terrible visual metaphor, again, because the number is too big.)
We poke fun at the weird comparisons in the "anything but metric" community, so I turned it around, and the whole joke here is that stating it as 187,000 megaliters is more difficult to grasp quickly, and doesn't actually add useful information in this context.
But, maybe I'm wrong. How is the precise volume of medicine wasted annually in England relevant in your life?
I don't like the implication that patients are somehow greedy.
This is a problem of packaging mostly, meaning you can't have just three pills of something, it's a blister pack of 10 at least. Maybe also of doctors overprescribing.
I don't like the measure of swimming pools either. Is it with packaging or without? Anyhow, how much is a swimming pool? Not standardised afaik. They should've said how many individual pills or doses, at the very least. Slightly more precise.
What do they call wasted medicine? Because many times a medicine that it is going to be used just a couple of times comes in a huge package like 10 times the size needed.
Volume makes no sense for this measurement, most of the pills and capsules are filler or shell
If it’s prescription then usually it’s a prescribed course or to to treat a condition.
The thing is mixed messages don’t help. Docs are often saying try something else before meds. So then if you get meds and it solves the problem then people stop. So wasted meds exist.
Secondly you tend to get a repeat prescription it’s often to manage or anticipate, say for example a migraine. If then this does not occur then it’s wasted meds.
Question is, if you need it later and it is not there and the doc L/surgery makes it hard to get hold of the med again is it easier option is to have a repeat prescription.
And the uk does not usually measure in swimming pools, football fields or Dodge rams. So whoever wrote this is clearly trying to get a reaction.
This is a huge issue in the United States, as well. And then there are people who need medicine and can't afford it.
And I bet the little urchins insist on swimming in water instead smh my head
all 5 comments