I was about to ask for clarification as well: what does the Y-axis indicate? If it's absolute numbers then it doesn't mean anything. Roughly speaking, if there 10x as many vaccinated as...
I was about to ask for clarification as well: what does the Y-axis indicate? If it's absolute numbers then it doesn't mean anything. Roughly speaking, if there 10x as many vaccinated as non-vaccinated, then we see the proportion of vaccinated infected people is ~5x less than proportion of non-vaccinated.
If the data interpretation is suspect, I'll more than happily take the piece down. I don't like the idea of having problematic reporting posted on such a serious subject matter.
If the data interpretation is suspect, I'll more than happily take the piece down. I don't like the idea of having problematic reporting posted on such a serious subject matter.
Okay I was being polite and going the Socratic route but this really isn't rocket surgery, it's blatant misrepresentation of data and manipulation of data presentation. At this point, having...
Okay I was being polite and going the Socratic route but this really isn't rocket surgery, it's blatant misrepresentation of data and manipulation of data presentation. At this point, having ambiguous references (the Y-axis) should be a major red flag at entry-level analysis.
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is an excellent introduction to critical thinking and analysis of science for lay people. I highly recommend it.
We have markedly different ideas of politeness it seems, but thank you for the reference. I used to read a few of his pieces back in the day in The Guardian.
We have markedly different ideas of politeness it seems, but thank you for the reference. I used to read a few of his pieces back in the day in The Guardian.
This is misleading reporting. Yes the vaccinated number is higher. But it represents a much larger potion of the population.
I was about to ask for clarification as well: what does the Y-axis indicate? If it's absolute numbers then it doesn't mean anything. Roughly speaking, if there 10x as many vaccinated as non-vaccinated, then we see the proportion of vaccinated infected people is ~5x less than proportion of non-vaccinated.
If the data interpretation is suspect, I'll more than happily take the piece down. I don't like the idea of having problematic reporting posted on such a serious subject matter.
Well then, what do you think? Given our two comments, do you think it's truthful?
Data analysis is not really my area of expertise. That's why I reached out with my comment.
Right, which is why I chimed in with my comment (as a "data analyst"). So now that you have new information, what is your conclusion?
Undecided. I might read a little more.
Okay I was being polite and going the Socratic route but this really isn't rocket surgery, it's blatant misrepresentation of data and manipulation of data presentation. At this point, having ambiguous references (the Y-axis) should be a major red flag at entry-level analysis.
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is an excellent introduction to critical thinking and analysis of science for lay people. I highly recommend it.
We have markedly different ideas of politeness it seems, but thank you for the reference. I used to read a few of his pieces back in the day in The Guardian.