3 ms·

You're being insultingly disingenuous. No one argued that statistics over a larger time will not give more signal. We all know what basic stats is. The questio

You're being insultingly disingenuous. No one argued that statistics over a larger time will not give more signal. We all know what basic stats is. The question is why you get to override the opinion of the people directly involved on what a suitable period of time is. It's farcical to imply that a period of time defined by the people who are literally on the ground for this is somehow unacceptable, yet the unit of time you literally pulled out of your behind (oh sorry, "arbitrarily guessed") is somehow acceptable. - "Small timescales" is relative to what is being measured in case you didn't know... for some observations 30 seconds is an eternity... So what about we leave determining what a suitable timescale to make observations on is to the people who aren't making arbitrary guesses from their armchairs and were literally watching this unfold in their day to day lives.

larksimian 5y ago
Given the national nature of the increase, it's unlikely that a local measure caused it, it's probably pandemic-times related. That being said obviously a longer time scale is better for trend detection than a shorter one.... Oooor is it dundundun :D since if you pick too long a timescale then you get additional events muddying the causality, like aforementioned pandemic. That that that being said public policy changes are chaotic things that can have one effect in the short run a different one in the medium term etc. It's kinda meaningless to declare victory or defeat, as society's interaction with laws evolves over time.