Group items tagged

Another example of news coverage over-stating the causal relationship between two things that research has demonstrated have some *association*. Good discussion of the particular headlines.

During the 2016 EU referendum campaign, both sides used statistics pretty freely to back their arguments. Understandably, UK broadcasters felt compelled to balance competing perspectives, giving audiences the opportunity to hear the relative merits of leaving or remaining in the EU. In doing so, however, the truth of these statistical claims was not always properly tested. This might help explain some of the public's misconceptions about EU membership. So, for example, although independent sources repeatedly challenged the Leave campaign's claim that the UK government spent £350m per week on EU membership, an IPSOS MORI survey found that almost half of respondents believed this was true just days before the election. Of the 6,916 news items examined in our research, more than 20% featured a statistic. Most of these statistical references were fairly vague, with little or limited context or explanation. Overall, only a third provided some context or made use of comparative data. Statistics featured mostly in stories about business, the economy, politics and health. So, for example, three-quarters of all economics items featured at least one statistic, compared to almost half of news about business. But there were some areas - where statistics might play a useful role in communicating trends or levels of risk - that statistics were rarely used.

Dismissing people's worries as baseless, whether that's about the safety of mobile phones or fluoridated drinking water, is one of the least effective ways of communicating public health risks. Yet it is common for people to "reassure" like this, both at home and in professional roles as experts, officials or corporate managers. 1. Hose down your own outrage first 2. Respect people's fears 3. Build trust 4. Don't panic about panic 5. Your actions communicate more than your words 6. Play the long game

By UTS' Stephen Woodcock. Statistics is a useful tool for understanding the patterns in the world around us. But our intuition often lets us down when it comes to interpreting those patterns. In this series we look at some of the common mistakes we make and how to avoid them when thinking about statistics, probability and risk.

Long read from the New Yorker on employment statistics. Good economic statistics benefit the left and the right, government and business. Without reliable data, businesses can't take risks on investments. Boeing, for example, decides how many 787 Dreamliners to build and therefore how many people to employ based on its Current Market Outlook forecast, which is rooted in government data and projects aircraft demand for the next twenty years.

This week, Hannah Devlin speaks with some of the statistical vigilantes who are scouring datasets to identify cases of fraud and poor scientific practice. These include the consultant anaesthetist John Carlisle, from Torbay Hospital in Devon, who details his role in the Fujii scandal. Hannah also speaks to a PhD student from Tilburg University in the Netherlands, Michèle Nuijten, about software she has helped develop to "spell-check" statistics found in psychology papers. And finally, we hear from the University of Cambridge's Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, David Spiegelhalter, who is also president of the Royal Statistical Society, about the dangers of statistical malpractice.

The census has been used for hundreds of years to determine how many U.S. House members each state will have, and it currently helps determine how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending is divvied up. "The risk that really troubles me is that there's a big undercount and then there's a big lack of representation," said John Thompson, who was director of the U.S. Census Bureau until he resigned last year (the bureau is still without a director).

On the importance of having data, in order to understand and tackle an issue... The most recent U.S. estimate...concluded approximately 513,000 women and girls at risk of genital mutilation...But that number should be taken with a big grain of salt...the data doesn't account for immigrants from countries where female genital cutting isn't studied or widely practiced...."You also can't assume that people who come to the U.S. are a representative sample of their country of origin," Clark said. That's especially problematic for estimating rates of female genital cutting, since it's not practiced uniformly within countries. It's also possible, he said, that some immigrants abandon the procedure as they assimilate....some advocates point out that although the estimates focus on immigrants, ...female genital cutting isn't new to the U.S. Female circumcision was performed as a treatment for masturbation by American physicians as recently as the mid-20th century...

Statistics is a useful tool for understanding the patterns in the world around us. But our intuition often lets us down when it comes to interpreting those patterns. In this series we look at some of the common mistakes we make and how to avoid them when thinking about statistics, probability and risk.

"Meditation can leave you feeling even more stressed," the Daily Mail reports. The claim is prompted by a study of 60 practitioners of Buddhist meditation in the US which found they'd had a range of "challenging or difficult" experiences associated with the practice. However, it's not clear how relevant the results are to the majority of people who use meditation apps or take mindfulness classes. This article discusses a great example of bad medical reporting from the daily mail. Note how the numbers stack up (e.g "almost 100" is actually 60 patients)

Algorithms are increasingly making decisions that affect ordinary people's lives. One example of this is so-called "algorithmic lending", with some companies claiming to have reduced the time it takes to approve a home loan to mere minutes. But can computers become better judges of financial risk than human bank tellers? Some computer scientists and data analysts certainly think so.

The Supreme Court does not compute. Or at least some of its members would rather not. The justices, the most powerful jurists in the land, seem to have a reluctance - even an allergy - to taking math and statistics seriously. For decades, the court has struggled with quantitative evidence of all kinds in a wide variety of cases. Sometimes justices ignore this evidence. Sometimes they misinterpret it. And sometimes they cast it aside in order to hold on to more traditional legal arguments. (And, yes, sometimes they also listen to the numbers.) Yet the world itself is becoming more computationally driven, and some of those computations will need to be adjudicated before long. Some major artificial intelligence case will likely come across the court's desk in the next decade, for example. By voicing an unwillingness to engage with data-driven empiricism, justices - and thus the court - are at risk of making decisions without fully grappling with the evidence. This problem was on full display earlier this month, when the Supreme Court heard arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a case that will determine the future of partisan gerrymandering - and the contours of American democracy along with it. As my colleague Galen Druke has reported, the case hinges on math: Is there a way to measure a map's partisan bias and to create a standard for when a gerrymandered map infringes on voters' rights?

To communicate uncertainty in climate change models and predictions, the IPCC uses a range of expressions to describe the probability that a particular event will occur. For example, in the phrase: "It is very likely that heat extremes will become more frequent in the future," the phrase 'very likely' is used to describe a likelihood of more than 90 per cent, says Smithson.

People use imprecise words to describe the chance of events all the time - "It's likely to rain," or "There's a real possibility they'll launch before us," or "It's doubtful the nurses will strike." Not only are such probabilistic terms subjective, but they also can have widely different interpretations. One person's "pretty likely" is another's "far from certain." Our research shows just how broad these gaps in understanding can be and the types of problems that can flow from these differences in interpretation.

These are uncertain times. The US presidential campaign has been divisive, there is disagreement over Brexit, jitters over China's economy and technology is disrupting traditional labour markets. What is the best way to weather all that uncertainty?

or those of us who can't stand the thought of creepy crawlies or who jump at the sight of a shadow in the ocean, summer in Australia can be a challenging time. Deadly snakes, sharks and spiders - you name it, we've got it. But just how deadly are these creatures and how disproportionate is our fear of them? To find out we compiled a list of deaths commonly associated with summer.

ASCO's news release about the screening study laments the "unfortunate" low rate of lung cancer screening and calls for an awareness campaign to encourage more smokers to get screened. Missing is discussion of legitimate reasons smokers might have to decline screening including substantial harms and a modest benefit. Following ASCO's lead, Bloomberg and HealthDay both echoed dramatic language about the finding without providing any perspective from independent experts who might voice reservations about screening.

Last week, the American Cancer Society published new guidelines that call for colorectal cancer screening to begin at age 45 - five years earlier than the group had previously recommended. But some experts are saying not so fast. The new recommendation was made in reaction to increasing rates of colorectal cancer among people younger than 50. But while the rise in cancers among this younger age group is troubling, this new recommendation was made before we know what's behind the new trend. And it's not clear that screening can help.It makes intuitive sense to respond to increasing rates of colon cancer among young people by lowering the screening age, said Michael Hochman, director of the the Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science at the Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. "But if I had a quarter for every time in medicine that we were tricked by an idea with intuitive appeal, I'd be a rich man," Hochman said.

While shark attacks are very rare, reports of shark attacks are on the rise. They have more than tripled in recent decades - from a total of 157 reports worldwide between 1970 and 1979 to a combined 661 reports from 2000 to 2009, according to the Florida Program for Shark Research (FPSR), which maintains a database of known attacks dating back to the mid-1500s. It's important to note that the increase is partly the result of an improved reporting system. But research also indicates that human population growth, increased interest in aquatic recreational activities and changes in weather and water quality play a role.

Maths quiz. If you take a Covid test that only gives a false positive one time in every 1,000, what's the chance that you've actually got Covid? Surely it's 99.9%, right? No! The correct answer is: you have no idea. You don't have enough information to make the judgment.