Some wrong lessons people will learn from the president’s illness, hospitalization, and expected recovery
Jonathan Falk writes about the president’s illness:
I [Falk] would think it provides a focused opportunity to make a few salient statistical education points.
First, a 6 percent mortality rate (among old people with comorbidities) is really bad, but any single selected person is really quite unlikely to die, or even be really sick. Same with all the reports about blood clots, six month recovery times, etc., etc. Even more unlikely. A prediction: when Trump feels fine in a couple of days this will be taken as one more piece of evidence that this is not a serious disease, which is statistically illiterate on a number of levels.
Second, the reference group (old people with comorbidities) implicitly assumes a standard level of care. (Changes in the standard of care is one of the main reasons the death rate has fallen so much from the average.) Trump’s probabilities are way better than that because he gets care that very few other people in the world get.
Third, it will be interesting to see retrospective assessments of the impact of whatever treatments he got. And of course how poor such retrospective inferences are.
That first point reminds me of the hookah story.
from Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science https://ift.tt/36AZNgR
via IFTTT
Comments
Post a Comment