On March 19, 2020 at 21:36, djy said...
Which rather exemplifies the point I was trying to make. Statistical analysis based upon incomplete data is fraught with pitfalls and can lead to wildly varying results. How, for example, can one make conclusions about death rates when when there is no certainty over how many people are actually infected?
At the outset the author claimed his views to be mere observations, which is no different to your 'opinion'. It may be 'uneducated', but it's no more reckless than 'educated' claims based upon incomplete data. That's my opinion.
Your first premise is the data is incomplete. Please show me why you think the data is incomplete or off in the Imperial College paper. Assuming the data is somehow incomplete, what is the proof that the data can't be analyzed without producing wildly varying results.
According to this book, publish by Jason W. Osborne. (Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina, Professor of Applied Statistics in the Department of Mathematical Sciences), data is capable of being analyzed in a variety of ways even if it is incomplete.
[Link: sagepub.com]You also stated, that:
'It may be 'uneducated', but it's no more reckless than 'educated' claims based upon incomplete data.'
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinion would go further if could show me some factual/scientific proof of anything that you posted now or earlier.
Maybe we will have to agree to disagree, but I would like to understand better how you came to your opinion.
Last edited by cupofjoe on March 19, 2020 23:05.
