I’ve seen this bloke talking and he usually starts off well, clear and direct, but kind of loses track towards the end. Here he mounts a powerful argument for us to ignore statisticians, because they can’t offer us any useful insights when we need them - now. To be fair he certainly isn’t a government stooge like the ones who stand either side of the politician of the day behind a lectern. He’s just a statistician, getting lost in the endless permutations and uncertainties of data.Wow. All kicked off here. Apologies if already shared, but thought the below was interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...how-does-britain-compare-with-other-countries
And even if we could get specific, comparable data between countries, it would be presented in some hideously misleading way.
Personally I don’t think we need absolutely precise data to make comparisons. We can say with some confidence that some nations - us, Belgium, Spain, Italy, France - have a much higher death rate than others - Germany, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia. There might be some demographic reasons behind some of this (Italy has a very old population), some societal reasons (the Italians, again, tend to mix a lot more between generations they don’t isolate their elders); there might be some systemic reasons (Germany apparently had capacity to test a lot quickly); there might be some policy reasons. The job is to work out what the places with broadly better results have done and then try to duplicate it if it is possible to copy (probably too late now).
I just get the feeling that endless navel gazing about how precisely comparable the statistics are is just a diversionary tactic to stop us thinking about how badly things seem to be going.
Last edited:
