And DOUBLE RISK? Just for the fun of playing with numbers...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana & Water Dragon Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Julie :o) on April 12, 2000 at 11:21:36:

In Reply to: Statistics... The real questions ??? posted by Julie :o) on April 11, 2000 at 21:32:19:

Humm... I was wandering how many cases on 1 500 would have to be herps-related to say that I doublee my risk of catching a salmonellosis when I have herps at home... For that rapid calcul, I ook the same hypothetical Illinois population...

Let say Illinois population is 2 000000 and that 3% (60 000) of them have reptiles (wich I think is approx. the % of houses with herps in the USA)
Let say 1 500 salmonellosis is reported each year, 89 being herps related (let say here that they consider that every salmonellosis in person with herps is cause by the
herps and nothing else, wich is not necessarely the reality...)
Let say that all salmonellosis not related with herps are in people not exposed at all to herps, making 1411 cases in non-exposed and 89 cases in exposed persons.

Thus, let say our control group are the 1 998 500 persons non-infected, 59 911 being exposed to herps and 1 938 589 being not exposed.

Thus :

1) Odds that a person with salmonellosis is exposed : (89 cases herps-related/1 500 cases) / (1411 cases/ 1 500) = 0.063
2) Odds that a control without salmonellosis is exposed : (59 911 / 1 998 500) / (1 938 589 / 1 998 500) = 0.031
3) The odds ratio is : 0.063 / 0.031 = 2,03

Meaning that in that hypothetical Illinois, the risk of developping a salmonellosis would be 2 times greater if you had reptiles when compare to people who don't...

WoW! Only 89 cases herps-related / 1 500 cases (only 6% of the total numebr of cases)... It's not that much...

But hey! It would take a lot more anyway to scare me but I tought it was interresting and that some of you would find these results surprising. Well, I know I did :o)

Julie :o)

Cold Blooded

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Humm... I was wandering how many cases on 1 500 would have to be herps-related to say that I doublee my risk of catching a salmonellosis when I have herps at home... For that rapid calcul, I ook the same hypothetical Illinois population... : : Let say Illinois population is 2 000000 and that 3% (60 000) of them have reptiles (wich I think is approx. the % of houses with herps in the USA) : Let say 1 500 salmonellosis is reported each year, 89 being herps related (let say here that they consider that every salmonellosis in person with herps is cause by the : herps and nothing else, wich is not necessarely the reality...) : Let say that all salmonellosis not related with herps are in people not exposed at all to herps, making 1411 cases in non-exposed and 89 cases in exposed persons. : Thus, let say our control group are the 1 998 500 persons non-infected, 59 911 being exposed to herps and 1 938 589 being not exposed. : Thus : : 1) Odds that a person with salmonellosis is exposed : (89 cases herps-related/1 500 cases) / (1411 cases/ 1 500) = 0.063 : 2) Odds that a control without salmonellosis is exposed : (59 911 / 1 998 500) / (1 938 589 / 1 998 500) = 0.031 : 3) The odds ratio is : 0.063 / 0.031 = 2,03 : : Meaning that in that hypothetical Illinois, the risk of developping a salmonellosis would be 2 times greater if you had reptiles when compare to people who don't... : : WoW! Only 89 cases herps-related / 1 500 cases (only 6% of the total numebr of cases)... It's not that much... : But hey! It would take a lot more anyway to scare me but I tought it was interresting and that some of you would find these results surprising. Well, I know I did :o) : Julie :o)

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Iguana & Water Dragon Forum ] [ FAQ ]