I noticed that, too. Here's my interpretation of how the two go together....
The method only determines relative risk, not absolute risk. In fact, it
really doesn't determine relative risk in the truest sense, but only relative
standard deviation or variance.
--------------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )---------------------
Date: Tuesday, 6 October 1998 12:05pm HPDesk
To: External.EMAIL
From: EXTERNAL.EMAIL
Subject: Feldblum
You are a BCC recipient of this message
******************************************************************************
/External
/From Amy.Hoffman@reliancenational.com
/To studygroup9@lists.casact.org
/End
******************************************************************************
Part 3.
I have a question about Feldblum's 3 criticisms of the standard
deviation/variance methods of determining risk loads.
Criticism #2 is that they determine "only relative risk, not absolute
risk".
Criticism #3 is that "these methods determine relative standard deviation
or relative variance, not relative risk."
Don't these statements contradict each other? Am I missing something? Any
clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks.