|
|
|
|
|
|
by lowlystatsguy
1529 days ago
|
|
|
There is nothing statistical about this analysis. The core of statistics is uncertainty, and I see no reporting of it within this post. Further, no statistician worth their salt would ever be their own hype man; they would understand just how many times a “stunning result” was really just a logical error or explained by confounding factors. Both the content and rhetoric in this post was disappointing enough for me to make an account just to say this. |
|
|
Is it a shame in your view, that the raw data is not being made easily available? Wouldn't that make it easier to say what is going on?
It seems though that this issue is highly politicised, and that there is no easy way for us to review the real information. We get changes of definitions (the definitions of vaccines, viruses have been changed), the way of reporting deaths was changed (eg dying 'with' not 'of' covid), even what counts as vaccinated is surprising to me (you are only considered vaccinated a full 2 weeks after you have your second jab (presumably the same applies to boosters)).
So, we don't know the terms of what is being collected, and that data is not being provided. For me this is a major problem, and I see no reason for the secrecy.