Now this is actual lying with statistics, as opposed to how people take numbers from a study and misrepresent them in ads. The authors could say they weren't deliberately untruthful and that could be true. A model is a what-if calculation and only as good as its assumptions. Models can be dreamed up all day, like story plots--the best stories aren't lies, but they aren't reality either. In this one the assumptions have too many holes, they don't jibe with reality as observed (lack of face validity), and imo all models deserve massive skepticism, many minds picking over all the possible alternative assumptions, pilot testing, and not ever used for policy without such checks.
I hate to even call it statistics. There isn't any real data to analyze. They just made up a scenario where "IF* certain things were true, and other things never happened, THEN there would be a certain result. The only real numbers are known like population and the rest might as well be magic.This is a combination of both "dazzling with [fictitious] data" and "baffling with bullshit." It works because not only is math hard but the caveats take work to figure out.
Edit: to clarify, it was the original model that was BS. The Lancet article points out all the ways that it went wrong, and the best part of the article is bringing in the all-cause deaths, imo, because that not only brings attention to the side effects of the vaccines, but ought to bring about a more reasonable way of evaluating vaccines in general, their benefit to harm ratio.
Now this is actual lying with statistics, as opposed to how people take numbers from a study and misrepresent them in ads. The authors could say they weren't deliberately untruthful and that could be true. A model is a what-if calculation and only as good as its assumptions. Models can be dreamed up all day, like story plots--the best stories aren't lies, but they aren't reality either. In this one the assumptions have too many holes, they don't jibe with reality as observed (lack of face validity), and imo all models deserve massive skepticism, many minds picking over all the possible alternative assumptions, pilot testing, and not ever used for policy without such checks.
Isn’t that the jist of this article, they played magic #’s with the jab?
I hate to even call it statistics. There isn't any real data to analyze. They just made up a scenario where "IF* certain things were true, and other things never happened, THEN there would be a certain result. The only real numbers are known like population and the rest might as well be magic.This is a combination of both "dazzling with [fictitious] data" and "baffling with bullshit." It works because not only is math hard but the caveats take work to figure out.
Edit: to clarify, it was the original model that was BS. The Lancet article points out all the ways that it went wrong, and the best part of the article is bringing in the all-cause deaths, imo, because that not only brings attention to the side effects of the vaccines, but ought to bring about a more reasonable way of evaluating vaccines in general, their benefit to harm ratio.
Well stated!