PrintYesterday I blogged about Megan McArdle after she used a statistic, and then claimed in an online chat that she was not using a statistic, but rather a "hypothetical." McArdle took a fair bit of criticism, and posted a response. Astoundingly, she says this:
The reference is to my off-the-cuff remark about slashing pharmaceutical profits by 80%. I should note, to be fair, that there were two portions of the comment: one in which I repeated an estimate I had heard from several people, that the US accounted for something in the range of 85% of pharma net profits after you accounted for various issues, which I then turned into 80-90% when typing--a fairly common way to give a range on an uncertain verbal statistic.
When typing? Also, "a fairly common way to give range on an uncertain verbal statistic" (that's a lot of qualifiers) is to not state it as a fact! Even worse:
I don't want my off-the-cuff comment, based on conversations with people who were not speaking on the record, to become the source of a fake statistic for the right. 80% may not be right, and I can't back it up with any hard numbers, because there are no hard numbers available. But multiple corresponding sources suggest that the number is well over 50%. 60% is probably the floor of likely.
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
COMMENTS (4)
"When you are in a hole, stop digging." But to do that would mean to admit that she was actually (gasp) wrong about anything.
I love this line: I can't back it up with any hard numbers, because there are no hard numbers available.
No numbers available? You mean big pharm has stopped reporting profits? Or does she mean the hard numbers are not at hand and she is too lazy too do the legwork to compile all of the numbers? She has entered Rod Burgundy territory.
The worst thing is her underlying concern about how the reform bill will affect big pharm is a valid one, one that should be addressed but she has blown a huge hole in whatever cred she has left.
"When you are in a hole, stop digging." But to do that would mean to admit that she was actually (gasp) wrong about anything.
I love this line: I can't back it up with any hard numbers, because there are no hard numbers available.
No numbers available? You mean big pharm has stopped reporting profits? Or does she mean the hard numbers are not at hand and she is too lazy too do the legwork to compile all of the numbers? She has entered Rod Burgundy territory.
The worst thing is her underlying concern about how the reform bill will affect big pharm is a valid one, one that should be addressed but she has blown a huge hole in whatever cred she has left.
The irony is, the closer to right McArdle is, the worse for her policy prescription. Shouldering the burden for the entirety of global pharmaceutical development is not likely to be a remotely efficient outcome for the US consumer/taxpayer.
The irony is, the closer to right McArdle is, the worse for her policy prescription. Shouldering the burden for the entirety of global pharmaceutical development is not likely to be a remotely efficient outcome for the US consumer/taxpayer.
Thank you, major. This line of argument is astounding to me. It's like you're buying a car and the dealer tells you: I'm sorry, you have to pay full sticker price because everyone else is getting a discount.
Thank you, major. This line of argument is astounding to me. It's like you're buying a car and the dealer tells you: I'm sorry, you have to pay full sticker price because everyone else is getting a discount.
One wonders if we've been reading the same post. First McArdle explains that the "hypothetical" comment was referencing the second sentence of her blog comment in which she laments the possible consequences of a, well, hypothetical situation in which 80% of Pharma profits are cut. Second, and more importantly, yesterday's post discusses in detail why it's hard to get exact numbers for drug company regional profits and explains the rational and methodology behind estimating the number at 80%. And yet, despite a reasonable post (the details of which one might disagree with, but other than some retributive snark, it is reasonable) expanding the details of her earlier comments and highlighting t ... view full comment
One wonders if we've been reading the same post. First McArdle explains that the "hypothetical" comment was referencing the second sentence of her blog comment in which she laments the possible consequences of a, well, hypothetical situation in which 80% of Pharma profits are cut. Second, and more importantly, yesterday's post discusses in detail why it's hard to get exact numbers for drug company regional profits and explains the rational and methodology behind estimating the number at 80%. And yet, despite a reasonable post (the details of which one might disagree with, but other than some retributive snark, it is reasonable) expanding the details of her earlier comments and highlighting the limits of her numerical estimation (which, admitted, probably could have been qualified at the time) McArdle gets hit with accusations of hole-digging. Naive as it may be, I would think substantive engagement and expansion would result in a link noting said clarification; along with which, if one disagreed with the analysis or even the methodology, a reasoned argument why might be presented. But maybe that's too much to hope for.