OK, for those of you who haven't had enough of Rev ranting about journalism, let's turn the page to this story, which is...fishy.https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1001463917145620481 …
-
-
Also, it's not like they used this sampling method pre-Maria,&were comparing the
#s, right? They were comparing their sampling method to published statistics. If it's just a biased method(for example, people are in multiple 'households' so they get overcounted) we wouldn't know? -
Presumably they counted # per household but who knows what other adjustments they used, let alone their validity. It's in AMA, I don't have access to that.
-
I was converted to PR statehood yesterday solely on the basis of learning that vital statistics data for PR and territories aren't in CDC Wonder so we can't make easy inferences about whether their methods are any good.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So, 5000 is a pretty good statistical estimate, even though the 95% confidence interval is wide?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.