Run or walk in the rain to stay dry? Another variable is how hot the ambient temperature and how far you run. If you break a sweat might that negate the reduction in rain absorbed relative to the objective of staying “dry”?
“We are unaware of a single study of real blood donations that shows that offering an incentive reduces the overall quantity or quality of blood donations.”
I would have thought financial incentives would encourage blood “donations” by people whose pay is lower (per hour of time required to give blood) than the payment for blood donation. This is likely to be the case mostly for low-to-moderate income people. Health status is positively correlated with income. So I would have believed compensation could lower quality (but not quantity).
If you’re caught in the rain without an umbrella, is it better to run or walk in order to stay as dry as possible?
That would depend on two factors? 1) whether you are capable of running faster than rain can fall. 2) the distance you have to run in the rain.
The optimal way to reduce the amount of water your clothes absorb would be to run as fast as you can (shorter time in the rain) while running no faster than rain can fall (not sweeping up rain that otherwise would not have hit you.
The first problem is that all of those studies looked at times when people were given gift cards for donating blood, which reduces the risk of, say, drug addicts trying to get a quick buck.
The idea is that in a country like America, when there aren’t usually blood shortages and most blood is tested for diseases, there is no reason to give more incentive to people with unhealthy blood. Even when there are shortages in America, they usually only involve cutting unnecessary surgeries and not serious emergency uses for blood.
Other countries are usually not able to test for blood and there is more incentive (in poor countries) to donate blood even if it isn’t healthy. Until there is some way for Americans to donate blood regularly to people all around the world, there’s no reason to do things that will likely incentivize unhealthy people more than healthy ones to donate.
In other words, you could stand to make fewer prostrations to the gods of the market place.
Run or walk in the rain to stay dry? Another variable is how hot the ambient temperature and how far you run. If you break a sweat might that negate the reduction in rain absorbed relative to the objective of staying “dry”?
Incentives will help blood donations, plain and simple.
“We are unaware of a single study of real blood donations that shows that offering an incentive reduces the overall quantity or quality of blood donations.”
I would have thought financial incentives would encourage blood “donations” by people whose pay is lower (per hour of time required to give blood) than the payment for blood donation. This is likely to be the case mostly for low-to-moderate income people. Health status is positively correlated with income. So I would have believed compensation could lower quality (but not quantity).
If you’re caught in the rain without an umbrella, is it better to run or walk in order to stay as dry as possible?
That would depend on two factors? 1) whether you are capable of running faster than rain can fall. 2) the distance you have to run in the rain.
The optimal way to reduce the amount of water your clothes absorb would be to run as fast as you can (shorter time in the rain) while running no faster than rain can fall (not sweeping up rain that otherwise would not have hit you.
I think running during a rain storm is your best bet, as the amount of H2O per cubitron that you absorb while moving is considerably less.
The first problem is that all of those studies looked at times when people were given gift cards for donating blood, which reduces the risk of, say, drug addicts trying to get a quick buck.
The idea is that in a country like America, when there aren’t usually blood shortages and most blood is tested for diseases, there is no reason to give more incentive to people with unhealthy blood. Even when there are shortages in America, they usually only involve cutting unnecessary surgeries and not serious emergency uses for blood.
Other countries are usually not able to test for blood and there is more incentive (in poor countries) to donate blood even if it isn’t healthy. Until there is some way for Americans to donate blood regularly to people all around the world, there’s no reason to do things that will likely incentivize unhealthy people more than healthy ones to donate.
In other words, you could stand to make fewer prostrations to the gods of the market place.
good points, David.
Thanks Sam.