3 ms·

Is sample size even relevant here? If they’re working with NHS data, presumably they have pretty reliable population data (i.e. not randomly sampled) to work wi

Is sample size even relevant here? If they’re working with NHS data, presumably they have pretty reliable population data (i.e. not randomly sampled) to work with. And regardless, even if it was a sample, I don’t see how a sample of thousands would be too small to detect a very large effect like that, unless the variance was extremely high. (But again, I’m not sure that complaining about “sample size” even makes sense in this case.)

timewizard 2y ago
> Is sample size even relevant here? There are two sample sizes. Kids who put things in noses. People who use cash. One is vastly larger than the other. Drawing conclusions from one about the other _purely retrospectively_ is nonsense.
- MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
  I agree that an observational study cannot prove that the reduction in these cases is due to the rise of cashless payments. The researchers themselves say it is “multifactorial.” However, that has absolutely nothing to do with “sample size.” There is no sampling here. The relative size of the population of people using cash vs. the population of kids sticking things up their nose also has nothing to do with whether is study is valid. The study is essentially making an observation and then presenting a hypothesis: in 2012, the use of cash began to decline in the UK, and over the next 10 years, there was a significant decline in the number of cases reported to the NHS where kids had to have a foreign object removed. Given that 75% of cases historically involved coins, the authors make a totally reasonable inference that the decline in the use of cash in the UK over this exact period likely played a big role. They also name several other factors that may have contributed. Your strong reaction to this study seems disproportionate and misguided. It’s not the most powerful or compelling study, but there’s nothing blatant wrong with it.

timewizard 2y ago

> Is sample size even relevant here? There are two sample sizes. Kids who put things in noses. People who use cash. One is vastly larger than the other. Drawing conclusions from one about the other _purely retrospectively_ is nonsense.

MajimasEyepatch 2y ago
I agree that an observational study cannot prove that the reduction in these cases is due to the rise of cashless payments. The researchers themselves say it is “multifactorial.” However, that has absolutely nothing to do with “sample size.” There is no sampling here. The relative size of the population of people using cash vs. the population of kids sticking things up their nose also has nothing to do with whether is study is valid. The study is essentially making an observation and then presenting a hypothesis: in 2012, the use of cash began to decline in the UK, and over the next 10 years, there was a significant decline in the number of cases reported to the NHS where kids had to have a foreign object removed. Given that 75% of cases historically involved coins, the authors make a totally reasonable inference that the decline in the use of cash in the UK over this exact period likely played a big role. They also name several other factors that may have contributed. Your strong reaction to this study seems disproportionate and misguided. It’s not the most powerful or compelling study, but there’s nothing blatant wrong with it.