Very well explained for easy understanding, I gained a lot from your video than from my own professor who just explained this topic in a confusing manner. Thank you
This is the best and outstanding lecture of Epidemiology in the world !!!!!!!!! Thank you so much, Sir...❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️we want more lectures like this on various topics of Epidemiology
Thank you very much, if you have time, two questions, what 1 thing did you really like about it, and when you say more, what more, there are video lectures on the other 3 key types of study designs, randomised controlled trials, and ecological and cross-sectional studies.
Very well explained , more clear than reading in the book. I want a video explaining the other types of studies Ecological , intervention and cross-sectional
Hi, nice spot, technically yes but in practice no. This is because the whole study period is seen as the unit of time (the time period for the risk). Otherwise we would have lots of different risk estimates depending on what years we selected. In the example, if we just looked at Year 1 the risk is 1/7, in Year 2 1/7, and in Year 1 + 2 it is 2/7. This is the reason why the rate estimate, in person-years give the more accurate estimate of the probability (chance) of dying because it takes into account, the number of people who died, the number of people who were exposed at the beginning, and the years of exposure. While risk only includes the number of people who died, and the number of people who were exposed at the beginning. This is why risk is easier to understand and use, but less accurate than rate, which is more accurate but harder to understand because person-years is not a idea we can intuitively understand and make sense of. It's not a concept we can link to everyday life.
Thank you for your videos. They are truly appreciated. You help me understand the material far better than when it's covered in the class lectures.
sir you did justice to these topics , great work sir thank you.I really appreciate the explanations.
Thank you so much. You make the topic so easy to understand
Very well explained for easy understanding, I gained a lot from your video than from my own professor who just explained this topic in a confusing manner. Thank you
Thank you, appreciate you taking the time to comment 😎
This is the best and outstanding lecture of Epidemiology in the world !!!!!!!!! Thank you so much, Sir...❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️we want more lectures like this on various topics of Epidemiology
Thank you very much, if you have time, two questions, what 1 thing did you really like about it, and when you say more, what more, there are video lectures on the other 3 key types of study designs, randomised controlled trials, and ecological and cross-sectional studies.
Your explanations are so incredibly well explained. Thank you so so so much!!
Thank you for the feedback, appreciated 🙏🏾
Very well explained , more clear than reading in the book. I want a video explaining the other types of studies Ecological , intervention and cross-sectional
Hi, see the Introduction to epidemiology playlist, and ua-cam.com/video/0mxJjwq1F-Y/v-deo.html
Thank you. Your explanation is very excellent
thank you. quite detailed
Very informative and easy to understand
Thank you, very much appreciated.
Around 21 minutes, should that not be 0.29 deaths per two years?
Hi, nice spot, technically yes but in practice no.
This is because the whole study period is seen as the unit of time (the time period for the risk). Otherwise we would have lots of different risk estimates depending on what years we selected. In the example, if we just looked at Year 1 the risk is 1/7, in Year 2 1/7, and in Year 1 + 2 it is 2/7.
This is the reason why the rate estimate, in person-years give the more accurate estimate of the probability (chance) of dying because it takes into account, the number of people who died, the number of people who were exposed at the beginning, and the years of exposure. While risk only includes the number of people who died, and the number of people who were exposed at the beginning.
This is why risk is easier to understand and use, but less accurate than rate, which is more accurate but harder to understand because person-years is not a idea we can intuitively understand and make sense of. It's not a concept we can link to everyday life.
@@ScienceandArtofPublicHealth Thank you very much for your in-depth reply! That makes a lot of sense!