9/n So in our lovely study of a convenience sample of diabetes tests, we can't say anything about how much diabetes there is in the community (population prevalence)! All we can talk about is diabetes IN THE PATIENTS TESTED
-
-
20/n They're going to great personal lengths to sacrifice for the rest of us ungrateful buggers, which might indicate that they're more likely to socialize, more likely to mingle, and thus more likely to get infected We JUST DON'T KNOW
Show this thread -
21/n And this is the problem with convenience samples, generally We cannot use them to estimate population prevalence (how many people have had COVID-19), because they aren't representative of society as a whole
Show this thread -
22/n So if you see a headline that says "x% of people infected with COVID-19!" take a leaf out of my mentor's book and ask: "WHAT'S THE DENOMINATOR?" It's a vitally important question
Show this thread -
23/n THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT CONVENIENCE SAMPLES ARE USELESS I use them in my research. They are brilliant for quick, cheap tracking of rates of infection IN SELECT GROUPS They also provide a brilliant window into change OVER TIME
Show this thread -
24/n For example, if you sample blood donors every week for a year, you've got an amazing insight into the changing nature of the pandemic THIS IS MASSIVELY IMPORTANT AND VERY CHEAP
Show this thread -
25/n You just can't use those results to tell how many people in the rest of society have gotten COVID-19 But that doesn't mean the results aren't helpful at all
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.