4 ms·
Show some rigor. > 25 deaths per million people per day That's not the same age range as actively practicing researchers.
by abcd_f 5mo ago
Show some rigor.
> 25 deaths per million people per day
That's not the same age range as actively practicing researchers.
- notahacker 5mo agoBut then if we're doing age ranges, the 10 people "tied to sensitive research" who have disappeared or died are 59, 61, 60, 68, 53, 60, 78, 47, 67, 39 (with the two youngest identified as homicide and suicide). How does a cohort with an average age in their 60s compare with the age range of actively practising researchers?
- zimpenfish 5mo agoI should imagine you could look at the CDC data for those cohorts and perform the same kind of analysis as he has.
- notahacker 5mo agoI agree, my point was more along the lines the poster demanding rigour wanted to use the death rates for the entire age range of "actively practising researchers" as a comparison baseline for a group of people averaging in their 60s. Don't even need the look at CDC data to know that they die more than the average working age person...
- zimpenfish 5mo ago> Show some rigor. Yes, perhaps by reading the link. "I should point out I am using numbers for the general population, which may not match the rate for scientists. [...] I also looked at CDC data – about 800,000 people in the US between 25 and 65 die each year [...] About 6% of the population work in the science field, which would be 192,000, or half that if you use a narrow definition of 3%, so close to the 73,000 figure I calculated the other way." He also looks at how that compares with the individual institutions. But yes, "show some rigor" indeed!
- abcd_f 5mo ago> by reading the link The link didn't inspire any confidence given the quote you provides.
- zimpenfish 5mo agoShould I have posted the full text?