|
|
|
|
|
by pgreenwood
3010 days ago
|
|
Ok I re-ran setting T properly for both cases. The results were similar: > poisson.test(c(1, 11800), c(3, 1000000), alternative = c("two.sided"),conf.level = .93) Comparison of Poisson rates data: c(1, 11800) time base: c(3, 1e+06)
count1 = 1, expected count1 = 0.035403, p-value = 0.03478
alternative hypothesis: true rate ratio is not equal to 1
93 percent confidence interval:
1.006334 146.142032
sample estimates:
rate ratio
28.24859
The lower bound of the CI approaches a rate ratio = 1 for a 93% confidence interval.Interestingly, if you multiply the CI I claimed before by the rate ratio instead of the expected rate,
you get almost exactly the same CI as here. > ci <- c(0.03562718, 5.17251332)
> 28.24859 * ci
[1] 1.006418 146.116208
* Note 11800 is about two years of pedestrian deaths and time units are in millions of miles.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... |
|