Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154 
March 29th, 2007, 04:05 PM
"Among workers aged 16 to 65 with a range of occupations, the average total number of days taken as sick leave was 25."
This is Sweden, realm of the Slacker King. This figure is flippin' phenomenal! And then they whack smokers on top of this number. Talk about a society with a mixed up citizenry! They're all lazy b*stards. And they're constantly touted for their standard of living. Who's smoking what?
"Among workers aged 16 to 65 with a range of occupations, the average total number of days taken as sick leave was 25."
This is Sweden, realm of the Slacker King. This figure is flippin' phenomenal! And then they whack smokers on top of this number. Talk about a society with a mixed up citizenry! They're all lazy b*stards. And they're constantly touted for their standard of living. Who's smoking what?
Metal King
Posts: 936
Location: Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
Location: Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
March 29th, 2007, 04:27 PM
Morbidly obese people are even worse..... maybe not in the sick days section but I've seen some uselessly large folks on the clock out there, don't need no study to know that folks who can't bend over are not good for too much
Morbidly obese people are even worse..... maybe not in the sick days section but I've seen some uselessly large folks on the clock out there, don't need no study to know that folks who can't bend over are not good for too much
March 29th, 2007, 05:30 PM
Not really. It's stats based on a population, of women in the Navy. The fact that only women were sampled doesn't negate the findings at all. They could have said smoking women are more likely to take more time off work than non-smoking women, but I don't think that tobacco smoke discriminates between the sexes in it's effects. If they wanted to say that women smokers were more likely to be sick than men, well then yes, this study would be flawed. Also, they also mentioned a study in Sweden.
Not really. It's stats based on a population, of women in the Navy. The fact that only women were sampled doesn't negate the findings at all. They could have said smoking women are more likely to take more time off work than non-smoking women, but I don't think that tobacco smoke discriminates between the sexes in it's effects. If they wanted to say that women smokers were more likely to be sick than men, well then yes, this study would be flawed. Also, they also mentioned a study in Sweden.
March 29th, 2007, 05:50 PM
Quoting GenGap
I don't get it.... how does PMS factor in? Women who smoke, and women who don't smoke, still both PMS. If the study only sampled women, then the only difference is smoking... we all PMS about the same amount.
bad stats. Its only women, and how many of these woman were PMSING?
Member
Posts: 120
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
March 29th, 2007, 06:04 PM
The amount of people they surveyed is very small, and it was reflecting one place of employment and not all women in general. This is a better example why, this stat holds no weight.
Quoting karrie
Yes, yet alot of woman tend to work less or take sick-leave during PMS and alot more smoke during PMS. Women that tend not to smoke and have PMS, tend to take less sick leave and are more productive according to health Canada.
I don't get it.... how does PMS factor in? Women who smoke, and women who don't smoke, still both PMS. If the study only sampled women, then the only difference is smoking... we all PMS about the same amount.
The amount of people they surveyed is very small, and it was reflecting one place of employment and not all women in general. This is a better example why, this stat holds no weight.
March 29th, 2007, 06:16 PM
When conducting an investigation like this, a change in the workplace is an example of a factor which needs to be controlled. They want to measure a response(sickness), in relation to a variable (smoking). In order to do so properly the conditions must be constant throughout the sample. And 5000 people is not a small sample. Theres a number of analytical methods which tell the researchers whethor or not the sample is representative of the population. Normality for instance.
When conducting an investigation like this, a change in the workplace is an example of a factor which needs to be controlled. They want to measure a response(sickness), in relation to a variable (smoking). In order to do so properly the conditions must be constant throughout the sample. And 5000 people is not a small sample. Theres a number of analytical methods which tell the researchers whethor or not the sample is representative of the population. Normality for instance.
March 29th, 2007, 06:18 PM
Though I CAN bend over and actually touch my toes, your statement was as harsh as some statements I've seen you get a tad irked over. There have to be thousands of folkes out there that might fit that ugly title, that not only contribute to society, but work hard to provide for their families.
Weight is not the best way to judge someones worth, or ablity. Of this I can assure you.
Non?
Quoting mabudon
mabudon, I really don't want to say FU, but I think I might fall in the "morbidly obese" category. I kinda like the way you think most of the time, so I'll personally grant you a mulligan on this if it was just a slip up.
Morbidly obese people are even worse..... maybe not in the sick days section but I've seen some uselessly large folks on the clock out there, don't need no study to know that folks who can't bend over are not good for too much
Though I CAN bend over and actually touch my toes, your statement was as harsh as some statements I've seen you get a tad irked over. There have to be thousands of folkes out there that might fit that ugly title, that not only contribute to society, but work hard to provide for their families.
Weight is not the best way to judge someones worth, or ablity. Of this I can assure you.
Quoting Tonington
If smoking is banned indoors, and smokers must smoke outside, then I would say the study is flawed. It could easily be a matter of being forced to endure the elliments as apposed to smoking.
Not really. It's stats based on a population, of women in the Navy. The fact that only women were sampled doesn't negate the findings at all. They could have said smoking women are more likely to take more time off work than non-smoking women, but I don't think that tobacco smoke discriminates between the sexes in it's effects. If they wanted to say that women smokers were more likely to be sick than men, well then yes, this study would be flawed. Also, they also mentioned a study in Sweden.
Non?
March 29th, 2007, 06:29 PM
Quote:
Not really. Choosing to smoke and continue to smoke will force you into that position. So the exposure to the elements could contribute to the illness, but the conclusion that smokers have more sick days than non-smokers still stands.
If smoking is banned indoors, and smokers must smoke outside, then I would say the study is flawed. It could easily be a matter of being forced to endure the elliments as apposed to smoking.
House Member
Posts: 2,761 
Location: California
Location: California
March 29th, 2007, 07:34 PM
And no, I wasn't pmsing at the time.
Quoting karrie
I hate it when men use this as a reason to explain anything about women. The last time my brother tried to blame my annoyance with him on PMS, I beat him with a hairbrush.
I don't get it.... how does PMS factor in? Women who smoke, and women who don't smoke, still both PMS. If the study only sampled women, then the only difference is smoking... we all PMS about the same amount.
And no, I wasn't pmsing at the time.
March 29th, 2007, 07:35 PM
Quoting tracy
That's called post-pms.
I hate it when men use this as a reason to explain anything about women. The last time my brother tried to blame my annoyance with him on PMS, I beat him with a hairbrush.
And no, I wasn't pmsing at the time.
And no, I wasn't pmsing at the time.
House Member
Posts: 2,761
Location: California
Location: California
March 29th, 2007, 07:41 PM
.
Quoting Kreskin
You can't have any m syndromes, pre or post, when you don't get a period at all. TMI maybe, but my birth control method of choice means no periods. My brother was just an idiot and my annoyance completely justified (as it always is when it comes to him)
That's called post-pms.
.
March 29th, 2007, 07:42 PM
pre-menstrual
plus-menstrual
post-menstrual
ovulating
Quoting Kreskin
My hubby breaks it down into the four weeks of the cycle, and the only time he likes me is when the letters don't add up to PMS. lol. Go figure.
That's called post-pms.
pre-menstrual
plus-menstrual
post-menstrual
ovulating
March 29th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Quoting karrie
LOL. Once in while there is super-menstrual. That's when everyone needs to take cover, fully armed.
My hubby breaks it down into the four weeks of the cycle, and the only time he likes me is when the letters don't add up to PMS. lol. Go figure.
pre-menstrual
plus-menstrual
post-menstrual
ovulating
pre-menstrual
plus-menstrual
post-menstrual
ovulating
