802 / 811 = 275,000!
2nd March 2010
Imagine two health care reform plans.
The first one will save 275,000 lives over 10 years.
The second one will lower the annual US death rate from 811 deaths per 100,000 people to 802 deaths per 100,000 ( 0.00811% to 0.00802%).
Which is the better plan? It’s obvious. The one that saves 275,000 lives, right?
Consider this:
There will be a cost in lives, too. Mr. Pollack’s organization estimates that as many as 275,000 people will die prematurely over the next 10 years because they do not have insurance.
While 275,000 is a large number of people and you and I would prefer to not make this list over the next 10 years, what does the number mean? Let’s go High WATT on it.
Turns out that the two options I gave you at the top of the post are equivalent. Whether you say it is 275,000 over 10 years or a change from 811 to 802 per 100,000, you are describing the same amount.
So, why don’t the researchers in the NY Times story use the rate style (811 versus 802)? It’s obvious. The change is ridiculously small. Gee whiz, let’s spend nearly a trillion dollars and move the death rate from 811 to 802.
Even 27,500 doesn’t sound that big, so pump it up to a ten year total and now we’ve got a Scary Number. 275,000 deaths is a lot of dead people to those of us who count on fingers and toes.
Yet another way of saying “275,000 over 10 years” is to say, “27,500 a year.” In 2006, the last year that the CDC has final statistics, it claims that 2,426,264 Americans died. Thus, the annual number of “27,500″ is just a little more than 1% of the annual death total for 2006.
One percent.
Thus, the most favorable estimate of the mortality impact of health care reform is a 1% improvement. In Windowpane terms this is one tenth of a Small Effect (a 45/55 effect). Now, we are talking mortality, so it is serious. But one tenth of a Small Effect? For a trillion dollar investment over the same time period? And given how very small the Effect Size is and how it was figured, isn’t it possible that it would actually be even smaller?
But, you obscure High WATT thinking and analysis when you persuade with numbers like this. Combine very small effects over long time periods and make a big deal about the Total, but not the Accumulation. It is an effective persuasion play because it looks like a serious, High WATT Central Route examination of the Facts, but really it is a Cue, a Peripheral Route shortcut that makes you the reader think you are Serious and Well Informed, when you are just the Target for an Advocate.
Remember: All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.