4 ms·
Just a quick glance at the map on that one and you can see it is "stupid data mining tricks." Colorado (skinny) and Georgia (fat) could account for all of the d
by scottlocklin 7y ago
Just a quick glance at the map on that one and you can see it is "stupid data mining tricks." Colorado (skinny) and Georgia (fat) could account for all of the difference.
There's a half dozen ways of falsifying this, but as its Elsevier, we'll never know.
- madcaptenor 7y agoI can't see the map (paywall). One thing I'd want to check is the difference across time zone boundaries. There's not much of a difference between western Georgia and eastern Alabama, other than time zones; do they have different health outcomes? (Or, if you want to say that maybe Georgia has more money than Alabama for public health, look at a state like Tennessee or Kentucky where the time zone boundary isn't the state boundary.
- scottlocklin 7y agoUsing the "web" thing takes me here: https://nypost.com/2019/04/23/living-on-the-wrong-side-of-a-time-zone-can-damage-your-health/ https://nypost.com/2019/04/23/living-on-the-wrong-side-of-a-... You can see there are huge cultural differences in a couple of places that could account for all of it. I agree, checking the local difference is a decent way to falsify this stinker. Bootstrapping a few states in and out of the data set would do so also.
- 3JPLW 7y agoI know we all love the low-brow dismissal and hating on social science and paywalls (I certainly do!) but this comment is terribly worthless. It's easy to find the paper (it's even linked below), and they of course do attempt to correct for many covariates including geographic locations and socioeconomic effects.