Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8210125" data-attributes="member: 177">There are many ways to look at data, and if you are looking across different sources, you must be careful to note what you are looking at from each source.&nbsp; You get different information depending on whether you look at absolute numbers of cases and deaths, cases and deaths per 100K population, and deaths per case, for example.So, you expected some similarity?&nbsp; These states each have different population densities, different income distributions, different cultures, different government responses, and different healthcare availability, all of which should impact case numbers and mortality in different ways.&nbsp; Now, with that in mind, ask yourself why you expect them to be similar?It is not &quot;random&quot;.&nbsp; It is dependent on many variables.&nbsp; Not the same thing at all.Lower than what?&nbsp; You should always explicitly state what you are comparing to... because often you'll find that what you are really comparing it to is your own expectations - and your expectations aren't worth squat.&nbsp; Sorry.&nbsp; Mine aren't worth much either.&nbsp; Nobody's are.By the CDC data, you have Washington and Oregon with 64 and 52 deaths per 100K.&nbsp; Then Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with around 100 to 130 per 100K.&nbsp; Then North and South Dakota with 180-210 per 100K.&nbsp; The numbers sort of rise as you go east from the coast.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; I dunno.&nbsp; Maybe it is access to healthcare?&nbsp; Maybe the average income drops as you go from the coast towards the interior?&nbsp; Maybe the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota set the Dakotas up for a nasty result?&nbsp; Maybe the government response got worse, or the number of people who chose to wear masks got worse?&nbsp; We'd need far more information to pinpoint WHY these things are different. Humans invented statistics because our native ability to guess how numbers should be... sucks.&nbsp; Badly.&nbsp; Do not trust how it &quot;seems&quot; to you.&nbsp; Human feelings about such things are strongly based on whether the numbers match some preconceived notion or preferred narrative.&nbsp; Those notions and narratives probably don't have to have anything to do with the realities of the virus, or varying conditions across a nation of 300 million people.And I return to... Massachusetts is not a whole lot like Utah.&nbsp; So, why should the numbers be similar?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8210125, member: 177"] There are [I]many[/I] ways to look at data, and if you are looking across different sources, you must be careful to note what you are looking at from each source. You get different information depending on whether you look at absolute numbers of cases and deaths, cases and deaths per 100K population, and deaths per case, for example. So, you expected some similarity? These states each have different population densities, different income distributions, different cultures, different government responses, and different healthcare availability, all of which should impact case numbers and mortality in different ways. Now, with that in mind, ask yourself why you expect them to be similar? It is not "random". It is dependent on many variables. Not the same thing at all. Lower [I]than what[/I]? You should always explicitly state what you are comparing to... because often you'll find that what you are really comparing it to is your own expectations - and your expectations aren't worth squat. Sorry. Mine aren't worth much either. Nobody's are. By the CDC data, you have Washington and Oregon with 64 and 52 deaths per 100K. Then Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming with around 100 to 130 per 100K. Then North and South Dakota with 180-210 per 100K. The numbers sort of rise as you go east from the coast. Why? I dunno. Maybe it is access to healthcare? Maybe the average income drops as you go from the coast towards the interior? Maybe the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota set the Dakotas up for a nasty result? Maybe the government response got worse, or the number of people who chose to wear masks got worse? We'd need far more information to pinpoint [I]WHY[/I] these things are different. Humans invented statistics because our native ability to guess how numbers should be... sucks. Badly. Do not trust how it "seems" to you. Human feelings about such things are strongly based on whether the numbers match some preconceived notion or preferred narrative. Those notions and narratives probably don't have to have anything to do with the realities of the virus, or varying conditions across a nation of 300 million people. And I return to... Massachusetts is not a whole lot like Utah. So, why should the numbers be similar? [/QUOTE]

Verification