4 ms·
Yes, but comparing flat numbers in a statistically uncorrected way is like saying "Why aren't there any of the population from oap nursing homes in primary scho
by rob_c 5y ago
Yes, but comparing flat numbers in a statistically uncorrected way is like saying "Why aren't there any of the population from oap nursing homes in primary schools?".
Context is king, no more so than large scale and complex statistical analyses. Sadly almost nobody seems to appreciate this as long as they have a number to argue a point.
Nobody corrects for population demographics. Population density. The various interventions which will pollute the study even further as some have proven damaging. Not to mention the large scale all cause mortality spike associated with the vaccine drive observed as predicted in each further country from watching the Israeli data.
Ignoring all of the above in your statistical analysis is both cherry picking and employing the same logic used by people to exclaim 5G definitely causes cancer because of study-X where a rat died that one time.
- AlecSchueler 5y agoMaybe you could account for the above and provide a counter analysis?
- rob_c 5y agoIronically yes, I could provided enough raw data is actually published and this was part of the formal statement about reproducibility and reliability of report 9. That alone is probably one of the reasons the above data is now declared in the interests of nation states rather than being openly shared data. Only a few years ago we were making headway in data like this being made publicly available in it's entirety through equivalent to the English ONS. But this is now very inconvenient and frankly some of the data has been deemed "does not exist" so it can't be requested under FOI laws in the UK, despite the infrastructure still being in place and working in collection of this data. I'm not crying conspiracy I'm just making a statement that lack of transparency sucks the big one when it comes to public policy.