Comments on: UK Charitable Giving and Spending http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/uk-charitable-giving-and-spending/ Autism news and opinion Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:34:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Kev http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/uk-charitable-giving-and-spending/#comment-44724 Kev Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:38:58 +0000 http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=671#comment-44724 VAB - why do you assume mental illness equates to non-competence? Siggy - coming from someone who thinks there is a statistical difference between 1% and 1% (still waiting for your answers genius - http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=651) , your points are bizarre. You describe this report as trying to hit a moving target and then go on to describe a situation they apparently missed which has no support or evidence whatsoever. Weird. VAB - why do you assume mental illness equates to non-competence?

Siggy – coming from someone who thinks there is a statistical difference between 1% and 1% (still waiting for your answers genius – http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=651) , your points are bizarre. You describe this report as trying to hit a moving target and then go on to describe a situation they apparently missed which has no support or evidence whatsoever. Weird.

]]> By: 666sigma http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/uk-charitable-giving-and-spending/#comment-44721 666sigma Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:44:56 +0000 http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=671#comment-44721 VAB, those are very good points. I didn't read the whole article - only the first page, but that was enough. They are mixing apples and oranges, which seems to be the case for most studies or information on autism. It's a moving target. The term "recovered" or "cured" is often used to describe children who continue to develop and adjust and make their way in the "normal" world. Today's 1 in 100 group will include a lot more of these recovered or cured children. The 6% figure probably applies largely to group of people with Kanner's or classic autism. I might read more in this report, but it is most likely rubbish. VAB, those are very good points. I didn’t read the whole article – only the first page, but that was enough. They are mixing apples and oranges, which seems to be the case for most studies or information on autism. It’s a moving target.

The term “recovered” or “cured” is often used to describe children who continue to develop and adjust and make their way in the “normal” world. Today’s 1 in 100 group will include a lot more of these recovered or cured children. The 6% figure probably applies largely to group of people with Kanner’s or classic autism.

I might read more in this report, but it is most likely rubbish.

]]> By: VAB http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/09/uk-charitable-giving-and-spending/#comment-44714 VAB Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:50:28 +0000 http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=671#comment-44714 I have a quibble. They say 1 in 100 has autism, but they also say 6% of people with autism are employed. They are mixing statistics and making an unfounded implication that 94% of the children now diagnosed with autism will be unable to find work. The 6% figure clearly applies to a cohort selected based on much narrower criteria. The same applies to the mental illness figures. The fact of the matter is that most people with autism (as currently broadly described) have productive and presumably happy lives. The goal should be to make sure that is true for as many autistic people as possible. For that to be possible, the general public will have to assume competence. If the general public sees a person with autism as only having a 6% chance of being employable and a 20% chance of not being mentally ill, how likely are they to presume competence and give the autistic person in front of them a fair shake? I have a quibble. They say 1 in 100 has autism, but they also say 6% of people with autism are employed. They are mixing statistics and making an unfounded implication that 94% of the children now diagnosed with autism will be unable to find work. The 6% figure clearly applies to a cohort selected based on much narrower criteria. The same applies to the mental illness figures. The fact of the matter is that most people with autism (as currently broadly described) have productive and presumably happy lives. The goal should be to make sure that is true for as many autistic people as possible. For that to be possible, the general public will have to assume competence. If the general public sees a person with autism as only having a 6% chance of being employable and a 20% chance of not being mentally ill, how likely are they to presume competence and give the autistic person in front of them a fair shake?

]]>