3 ms·
This is explicitly discussed in the article. Why are you calling it misleading, when they make the same point as you do, in almost the same way? > For example
by generalizations 5y ago
This is explicitly discussed in the article. Why are you calling it misleading, when they make the same point as you do, in almost the same way?
> For example, if like China, you eventually eradicate the virus when you have about 80,000 cases, you may end up with hundreds of days with values starting with 8.
The article concludes by pointing out that for this reason, cumulative numbers aren't as suspicious, but anomalous daily numbers are...curious.
- throwaway4good 5y agoYou are right - it is actually mentioned in the article - sorry about that. I would still say that it is somewhat silly to apply Benford's law here - also in the non-cumulative case. The distribution of the daily number how much disease is circulating - where I am at the moment we have daily numbers stable at some 40-50 thousands, leading to 4 and 5 being overrepresented, without it being in any way being fraudulent or made up.