Professional, Amateur & Wannabe Statisticians Alike – Let’s See What You’ve Got!

I put these graphs together from information gleaned from:

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemiology reports, Australia, 2020–2021 and COVID-19 vaccination daily rollout update.

I’m by no means saying they are 100% accurate, because there is some extraordinarily sloppy work contained within these documents, and it can be easily misunderstood. Combined with their constantly changing of age groups, datasets, assumptions and just plain old data disappearance, it makes it difficult to be exact (without looking inside the tent…which we’ll never be allowed to do).

However, I am confident that these graphs reasonably accurately represent the data provided. Happy to adjust, if I’m in error. I’m not infallible.

For each age group, I have graphed the percentage of hospitalisations (number of hospitalisations per 100 confirmed cases) against the 1st and 2nd dose vaccinated percentage (of age group population). I have also provided the raw population of each age group so that you can appreciate the volume of data points for each.

I’ve not included any analysis or interpretation as I’m hoping that y’all could give it a go, and we can have some lively discussions around it. I see many different variables which could be at play in these graphs, but they are interesting and certainly worth some mental horsepower.

Give it your best shot.

71 thoughts on “Professional, Amateur & Wannabe Statisticians Alike – Let’s See What You’ve Got!”

  1. “Cases” refers to people who have tested positive. There are plenty of people who will have caught coronavirus who never felt sick enough to have gone and got tested.
    It’s pretty clear that there is a high percentage of hospitalizations for anyone who tests positive. The current regime is “stay home and call us if you get really sick”. Are they really saying that after two years, there is nothing that can be done until a hospital is required. Vitamin D tablets? Zinc? Try to spend isolation time in the sun in your backyard? Eat oranges? Dare I say “repurposed medications”?
    moderated

    14
  2. I’ll start by saying that I’m not seeing any reduction in hospitalisations for the under 60’s.
    An unkind people might even suggest the opposite is happening.


    Report comment

    10
  3. Epic sleuthing. 😀

    Not a statistician of any colour, but I did notice something that looks like vaccine hesitancy in the first two graphs.

    Low level adverse reactions to the first causing reluctance to have a second? Or maybe just the laziness of youth.


    Report comment

    5
  4. Not a statistician of any colour, but I did notice something that looks like vaccine hesitancy in the first two graphs.

    Two of mine in the 20-29 cohort have thus far refused the jab.

    The third had little choice, being army.


    Report comment

    13
  5. Given the massive propaganda around the efficiency of vaccines, I would absolutely expect hospitalisations in every age group to decrease as vaccination rates increase.
    That only occurs in age groups over 60.


    Report comment

    5
  6. I’m having difficulty understanding the graphs, or there may be an issue with the data.

    using 60-69 graph as an example, at 29 Aug the numbers for single and double jab exceed 100%. there must also be numbers with no jab.

    What am i missing?


    Report comment

  7. Those who only have the first dose are the 1st Dose percent minus the 2nd Dose percent.
    For 60-69 at 29 Aug, 77.9 – 43.7 = 34.2 percent of that age group have only been single dosed.
    [ie all the 2nd dosed are also single dosed]


    Report comment

  8. There might be some “Survivor Bias” in these numbers (look it up, a fascinating story or WW2 bomber survival stats)

    It could be argued that once someone is “vaccinated” they no longer catch covid and therefor the only cases left are unvaccinated and therefore hospitalisations are mainly unvaccinated. This would align with the current narrative but it can’t be confirmed as data does not seem available any more.

    If you could get the hospitalisation and death rate of different vaccinated stats it would be interesting.

    Personally my family is still not vaxed, but one teenage son has been stood down and I am going to have to make some difficult decisions soon.


    Report comment

    7
  9. Old School Conservativesays:
    October 20, 2021 at 6:40 pm
    Cali:
    perhaps not laziness but the “I’m bulletproof” mentality.
    Lucky devils.

    I once worked for a bloke who flew with Bomber Command.

    Someone asked him at morning tea one day, whether he was frightened, flying in the dark in an aircraft loaded with several tone of high explosive, and huge quantities of high octane petrol, surrounded by hundreds of darkened aircraft on a similar course, and hunted by night fighters and flak.

    HIs response was “When you’re that age, you think you’re immortal”. He lived to 89, so he had a good try at it.


    Report comment

    16
  10. It could be argued that once someone is “vaccinated” they no longer catch covid and therefor the only cases left are unvaccinated and therefore hospitalisations are mainly unvaccinated.

    I considered it, and still think it’s possible.
    However, the trends are very consistent which would mean that the percentage catching it and going to hospital would need to be increasing at a rate roughly the same as those being vaccinated, and keeping a variable pace.

    Possible, but I’d expect more erratic behaviour with the data, and would still expect movement one way or another. You’d think such consistency wouldn’t hold across all the age groups under 60, but it seems to. However, we’ll keep that one as a possible.

    Yes, I’d really like the full data. It’s a shame we’re not all in this together and they could feel free to be open and honest with us. Even the NSW data that Rosie linked to earlier, doesn’t break the hospitalised vaned/unvaxxed into age groups, which would make it far more useful. There’s probably a reason for that.


    Report comment

    2
  11. Brian,

    if as you describe them the graph is misleading. at a glance it shows single dose as highest proportion, when by your figures double dose is higher.


    Report comment

  12. Those figures are as the government presents them.

    I guess they was to think about it is that the single dose percentage is those that have had a least one shot.
    The double dosed figure is those that have had two.

    They say a single shot provides protection…so I’d expect to see a hospitalisation response to those figures (even a modest one). But I’d certainly expect to see a change with the two shots.


    Report comment

    3
  13. . at a glance it shows single dose as highest proportion

    ..
    If it said “single dose only” you’d be correct.
    But it doesn’t. It say’s “single dose”, as in, everyone who has had at least a single dose.


    Report comment

    4
  14. Hmm,
    while the data presented is presented fairly generally and in incomplete form ( not from zero cases and zero doses of vaccine, though direct correlating timescale), I believe it may be possible to suggest that the Pfizer intervention has a causal relationship to increase in confirmed cases. Which is pretty much what has been observed everywhere else in the world where case numbers increase as the percentage of the population gene therapy treated increases.

    In that the majority of the people in the world have been jabbed with either Pfizer or Moderna. Which in my understanding is essentially the same product re-branded with the replicates experimental subjects received containing higher quantities of franken-spike m-RNA in Moderna treatments versus Pfizer.

    This assumes the majority of persons in the age group 40-49 were subject to Pfizer with older persons offered Astra-Zeneca more often than not. This trend of increasing confirmed cases seems to level off at the 50 to 70% of age group treated with first dose.

    It appears for all age groups 70-79 and younger, that even with a majority of persons having had one jab that there is barely a statistically significant decrease (5%) in confirmed cases. I suppose gene therapy proponents will refer to none of the treatments being sterilising ones. That would technically be because “sterilising” is a term that refers to a vaccine which is a different category of medical intervention. We must bear in mind these treatments do not prevent spread rather it is alleged only severity of symptomology ( for a limited period of months).

    As per in other countries in particular Israel and the UK, expect the surge in double jabbed cases to follow two months of where the upward trend of confirmed cases temporally reversed. What else could be expected given the gene therapy delivery system which was actually designed and patented for chemotherapy ( Pfizer + Moderna), and causes utter havoc for the innate immune system/ opsonisation/ complement cascade.

    When diagnosed cancer patients die during or following chemotherapy, anybody ever heard of the chemotherapy being blamed?

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100216804A1/en?oq=2010%2f0216804

    Given the above, I believe it is a little clearer why the TGA utilised an approval process for these treatments normally reserved for terminally ill patients. I suppose the assumption being for cancer patients that there’s not much of an immune system left to worry about.


    Report comment

    4
  15. Mater 2 observations.
    For the under 60’s hospitalisations have increased over the time and for the >60’s they have decreased. Perhaps this indicates that at about 40% vaxxed a positive effect can be seen?
    Second, on 12 Sept across all age groups hospital rates turn down. This seems a little curious. I’d speculate that as case numbers were ramping up a bit of hospital bed rationing was kicking in?
    It would be interesting to see the last month’s figures to see what has happened.


    Report comment

    2
  16. I hear that Greg Hunt is only going to allow the mRNA super frankenjabs for the soon-to-be-mandatory booster shots. I was forced against my will into getting jabbed but fucked if I’m touching that mRNA stuff


    Report comment

    3
  17. You people are all innumerate retards.
    Here are the important facts easily read from these graphs:
    For the 20 to 29 years old, as vaccines have ramped up the rate of hospitalisations have gone from 6% to around 10.3%. In other words the hospitalisation rate has near doubled.
    For those in the the 30 to 39 y.o. age group, as the vaccines have rolled out, hospitalisations have gone from 5% to near 15%, in other words, hospitalisation rates on a percent basis have tripled.
    ..
    Whereas for old fucks the hospitalisation rates have reduced significantly.
    If, IF these changes are due to the vaccines, then the result has been a massive transfer of risk from old people to the young.


    Report comment

    14
  18. Thanks, Mater.

    One of the first things I do is to scan a dataset and charts for potentially interesting outliers. My eye immediately lit on ‘hospitalisations’. Hmmm. Ten per cent of Kung Flu cases hospitalised in the 18-29 group. I ask myself, does that sound right? Not to me, no. So we turn to the definitions:

    Note that hospitalisation data in NINDSS should be interpreted with caution: hospitalisation is not always reflective of severe illness, as cases may be hospitalised for reasons other than clinical COVID-19 related care

    Right. . . .

    I’m too lazy to go interneting after the underlying definitions, but I expect that ‘hospitalised’ actually includes things like ‘was asked to stick around for a chat with a doctor then sent straight home for some aspirin’. After all, hospitals have incentives to increase the number of recorded hospitalisations to help their budget bids.

    So I’m not panicking over the seemingly high rate of hospitalisations to cases. Not yet.


    Report comment

    3
  19. then the result has been a massive transfer of risk from old people to the young

    revenge of the boomers?

    trouble is, from what I can see, is the classification by age.

    what abouts by occupation?

    uber drivers and meat-workers are 15x more like to be hospitalised than jockeys or journalists

    what’s up with that?


    Report comment

    2
  20. If, IF these changes are due to the vaccines, then the result has been a massive transfer of risk from old people to the young.

    This. Well done Arky.

    And well done Mater. Great post.


    Report comment

    5
  21. This assumes the majority of persons in the age group 40-49 were subject to Pfizer with older persons offered Astra-Zeneca more often than not.

    The AZ vs Pfizer change for the elderly is an aspect I hadn’t paid due attention to. Well done, and thanks for that one.
    The figures for the elderly are also dealing with much smaller numbers, so the data will be less consistent, obviously.
    Another variable is whether or not they are treating elderly cases in situ (nursing homes)? I have no idea of this possibly, but the young don’t have that ‘luxury’.

    Second, on 12 Sept across all age groups hospital rates turn down. This seems a little curious. I’d speculate that as case numbers were ramping up a bit of hospital bed rationing was kicking in?

    That’s a good point, and rationing could be valid.
    Also, they changed their reporting format, the younger age brackets, (and probably some definitions) for the 12 Sept data, so I highly suspect it’s a fragment of that. Given the uncertainty, I’ve tried to be as generous as I can towards the hospitalisations reducing. That it what you see in the graphs.


    Report comment

    1
  22. What you’re seeing is that the hospitalization rate drops and drops considerably as you head down the age cohorts. While the hospital rates are much lower as you move down through the age groups they all appear to be dropping somewhat with the increase in double dosage. The real impact is in the older groups. FMD, though 10% of the youngest cohort 20/29 ends up in hospital. That is a big number. The Chinese produced an excellent bioweapon. Next time though they should focus on trying to get the young into trouble.


    Report comment

    1
  23. While the hospital rates are much lower as you move down through the age groups they all appear to be dropping somewhat with the increase in double dosage.

    Are we looking at the same graphs?


    Report comment

    1
  24. “A top doctor has warned there is “profound evidence” that people who received a covid vaccine early could already be experiencing a decline in protection.”

    https://www.themercury.com.au/news/national/australia-covid-news-live-cases-new-freedoms-and-vaccinations/news-story/993a8e60ce373f3acc616338ae976f8c

    Now the truth comes out.
    This is why the government can never mandate covid-19 jabs.
    They don’t provide protection.
    They don’t stop transmission and now all the jabbed have to get boosters.


    Report comment

    6
  25. I think so Mater.The blue line is hospitalization rates (per 100 cases) , right?
    The red line is two doses and the black line is the single dose.

    Take the first and youngest cohort, the 20-29 year olds and look at 26 Sept.

    Hospitalization is 9.6%. Double dose is 27.8 and single 57.8
    I know what you mean, that if you go much further left everything is down. I was comparing the last couple of dates. It is beginning to drop now.
    I think it’s a chicken and egg situation. The hospitalization rate was increasing because the contraction rate was going up too from July to September.


    Report comment

  26. “Mortality data tells us information about deaths in Australia and is usually released every 6 weeks.

    For some unexplained reason, the latest data is over 15 weeks overdue.

    The government needs to be transparent and release the data now.

    The last mortality data covers the period to 30th June 2021.
    It is now October.
    Suddenly and without explanation the data is being held back for 15 weeks.

    The data to June 30th shows deaths in Australia in 2021 are above the 7 year moving average and consistently above anything we have ever seen before in Australia.”

    Parliament transcript: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/why-is-data-about-deaths-being-held-back/

    via newcatallaxyblog twitter feed


    Report comment

    10
  27. The hospitalization rate was increasing because the contraction rate was going up too from July to September.

    It’s just a percentage. The contraction rate should have nothing to do with the hospitalisation rate per confirmed case (except if rationing kicked in).

    As the vax rate went up, we should have seen the hospitalisation rate go down, if the narrative was holding true.

    The data for the oldies might indicate that AZ is doing a better job. You should be thankful you had the ‘commoners’ shot!


    Report comment

  28. I suspect the data from the 12 Sep (which is giving you your brief down ward trend) is a hiccups in their reporting. I wouldn’t read too much into it. A downward trend should have started much earlier.

    I will, however, be interested to see where this trend goes as more comes out.


    Report comment

  29. JC,
    I suspect Arky pulled his punches last night (10:26) when he called us all “innumerate retards”.
    Wait until he gets up and reads your comment. He’ll be like a rampaging Giraffe! It’ll all be “shit”.


    Report comment

  30. I hear that Greg Hunt is only going to allow the mRNA super frankenjabs for the soon-to-be-mandatory booster shots. I was forced against my will into getting jabbed but fucked if I’m touching that mRNA stuff

    Talking about stuff, Greg and his family seem to be gorging themselves on the effects of these policies.


    Report comment

    1
  31. Can I ask a question?
    How is older people being vaccinated and being less likely to need hospital care or dying transferring the risk to younger people?


    Report comment

    1
  32. the result has been a massive transfer of risk from old people to the young

    Which is yet another obscenity, especially if those useless unnecessary toxic chemical cocktails have as yet unseen adverse impacts on younger people in the medium to long term.

    Stupidity on stilts. Anyone who thinks that various groups I’ve been railing against over the last nineteen months don’t deserve some mighty medieval punishments is part of the problem.


    Report comment

    3
  33. I don’t think you can use hospitalisation rates for anything.

    Government policies and actions govern them as much as sickness.

    I expect the tendency for some jurisdictions to use hospitals as a form of quarantine will have the greatest impact on the rate.


    Report comment

    2
  34. rosiesays:
    October 21, 2021 at 8:35 am
    Can I ask a question?
    How is older people being vaccinated and being less likely to need hospital care or dying transferring the risk to younger people?

    ..
    Because of the mandate.
    If they weren’t mandated and propagandized, but instead targeted at vulnerable groups where the risk/ reward is highest, then there wouldn’t BE any data for 20- 29 y.o.s.


    Report comment

    6
  35. I expect the tendency for some jurisdictions to use hospitals as a form of quarantine will have the greatest impact on the rate.
    Am I right in thinking that if you are tested as having covid, even if you are showing no symptoms and are apparently well, you are still hospitalized?
    Am I right in thinking that, if you do show signs of illness, you are given no treatment, even though such signs, if not identified as covid inspired, would result in a whole range of treatments?
    And, finally, are you far more likely to be put, without your specific consent, onto a ventilator, which is quite likely to kill you, especially if you are old?


    Report comment

    4
  36. I don’t think you can use hospitalisation rates for anything.

    Unfortunately their last remaining guilt trip against the hold outs is to use the hospitalisation (overwhelming the Health system) shtick.

    If they want to go there, I’ll follow. They’re making the claims, I’m just analysing them.


    Report comment

    5
  37. Am I right in thinking that if you are tested as having covid, even if you are showing no symptoms and are apparently well, you are still hospitalized?

    nope
    you are quarantined at home
    if yr luck you get an oxygen monitor and a platelet count thingy
    from my understanding you do not get any medicine.

    Health/Justice make damn sure you stay home

    if/when you get really sick, then you get care


    Report comment

    3
  38. There would be any vaccine data but I don’t think you can claim no-one aged between 20 and 29 would ever get very sick from covid.

    ..
    Fuck off you nit picking retard.


    Report comment

    7
  39. I expect the tendency for some jurisdictions to use hospitals as a form of quarantine will have the greatest impact on the rate.

    A friend in the Victorian hospital system told me that happens, especially to aged care residents who test positive. Many don’t really need to be in hospital but there’s nowhere else to put them.


    Report comment

    3
  40. Stupidity on stilts. Anyone who thinks that various groups I’ve been railing against over the last nineteen months don’t deserve some mighty medieval punishments is part of the problem.

    And on an unrelated topic ….. my new crossbow fires a 325gr bolt at 440m/s … about twice the energy of a .22


    Report comment

    3
  41. “I suspect Arky pulled his punches last night (10:26) when he called us all “innumerate retards”.”

    You need to understand some epidemiology too – just stats is not enough.

    For a start though, this appears to be a univariate analysis, which limits what we can learn, and would not appear to me to be done by an epidemiologist (like sociologists, no serious epidemiologist relies on a univariate analysis unless they have an agenda to push and are only talking to non-specialists they can baffle with numbers)

    For example, prevalence is missing – how many actual cases per age group? 57% of 100 is a very big difference to 57% of 10,000! (yes, percentage is the same, I know that).

    Also, PCR cycle count matters too – certainly the US CDC has been caught using 40 cycles for unvaxed testing vs 28 cycles for vaxed testing. This obviously changes the results and favours lower case numbers for the vaxed.

    And as others have suggested, co-morbidies and the difference between “hospitalised for something else and then tested positive for COVID” vs “tested positive and then hospitalised for it” are very different animals.

    Interesting data to be sure – but not really telling us very much of use, IMO.


    Report comment

    3
  42. For example, prevalence is missing – how many actual cases per age group? 57% of 100 is a very big difference to 57% of 10,000! (yes, percentage is the same, I know that).

    Thanks for the feedback.
    I did include the population of each age group in the heading of each graph to allow people to get their heads around this issue.


    Report comment

    2
  43. The Hospitalisation Rate per 100 Cases may not be a reliable metric as it covers a range of issues. For example, that Chant lady in Sydney said that anyone who was hospitalised or died within 14 days of taking the first or second jab, their death or hospitalisation following the jab would be recorded as a Covid death or a Covid hospitalisation.

    What percentage of the Hospitalisation Rate per 100 Cases figure comprise hospitalisation for vaxxine adverse events?


    Report comment

    2
  44. What percentage of the Hospitalisation Rate per 100 Cases figure comprise hospitalisation for vaxxine adverse events?

    Not a chance.
    I struggled to gather up the minimal info that I’ve presented in the graphs. I’m working with what I can get, and trying to determine what it can tell us…even if imperfect.


    Report comment

    1
  45. Hospitalisations
    To report on COVID-19 disease severity, we draw on hospitalisations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions data provided from two sentinel surveillance systems:

    Just so people understand why I did this, the authorities use hospitalisations as a metric to assess the ‘severity’ of an illness (see quote above).
    They do this with Influenza, too.

    I agree with the questions/criticisms about the validity of the approach, however, they choose the ground, we have to fight on it.


    Report comment

    4
  46. As per in other countries in particular Israel and the UK, expect the surge in double jabbed cases to follow two months of where the upward trend of confirmed cases temporally reversed. What else could be expected given the gene therapy delivery system which was actually designed and patented for chemotherapy ( Pfizer + Moderna), and causes utter havoc for the innate immune system/ opsonisation/ complement cascade.

    Excellent comment, HD. You very rarely see this acknowledged, as I think very few of the general public are acquainted with the process, and how it is playing out in this pandemic.


    Report comment

    1
  47. if yr luck you get an oxygen monitor and a platelet count thingy

    Stunned to hear any punter gets those – lucky buggers! There are amazing cases (reported e.g. by Scottish Dr Malcolm Kendrick who has treated thousands of COVID patients) following cytokine storms & subsequent oxygen deprivation when the patient simply collapses and dies with little warning. Kendrick said he always carried an oxygen monitor – for himself as well.

    On the other hand, it also amazes me that those who test positive are not advised to take aspirin, and take the highest doses of Quercetin, Zinc & Vit D allowable. Even bloody anti-histamines would help – a Spanish aged care facility lacked medication except for anti-histamines which they gave to all the oldies – didn’t lose one to COVID!!!


    Report comment

    2
  48. You need to understand some epidemiology too – just stats is not enough.

    The first rule of epidemiology is that all epidemiology is bullshit.

    Doctors act as gatekeepers (most of the time) so diagnosing/testing typically just reflects whatever beliefs they hold.

    Why did rats and fleas kill tens of millions in the 14th century but in every other century they left humans alone?

    Why did mosquitoes infect hundreds of millions of people in colder climates with malaria but after the middle of the twentieth century, the mosquitoes decided they didn’t like colder weather?

    Why did lung cancer rise commensurately with the fall in TB during the 20th century?

    Why did paralysis rise even as polio diagnoses fell?

    Why did congenital defect rates rise even as rubella diagnoses fell?

    Why did liver cancer rise even as hepatitis B diagnoses fell?

    All of these questions can be answered when you realise that doctors’ diagnoses are nothing more than a manifestation of their prejudices. Those prejudices are sometimes correct but often wrong. Right or wrong though, the data always make it look like they chose wisely.

    This is why bloodletting lasted thousands of years and vaccines have lasted hundreds. Both are biologically impossible and neither have valid data to support them. However, because of doctor prejudices, there is enough “evidence” to make it look like they work.


    Report comment

  49. Mater

    Did you think I was trolling earlier? I wasn’t. I didn’t read the dates and thought the downslope on the right side was carried by longer than what it was.


    Report comment

  50. “The first rule of epidemiology is that all epidemiology is bullshit.

    Doctors act as gatekeepers (most of the time) so diagnosing/testing typically just reflects whatever beliefs they hold.”

    Epidemiology is applied stats.
    It is useful because, like many stats, it can tell you things that are not obvious to casual inspection of the raw data.

    The way epidemiology is treated by the medical profession tells you all you need to know –
    when a doctor has a new treatment they are working on, and you ask them about the epidemiology, they typically respond “I treat these patients, I know what works, I don’t need no stinking epidemiology to tell me it works!”. Yet ask them about someone else’s new procedure, and the first thing they ask is “What does the epidemiology say?” Very telling.

    Done well, by a disinterested and experienced practitioner, and epidemiology is highly valuable. Done by someone with an agenda, and it is like any other stat – take it with a grain of salt.

    You will notice that in general, the most well regarded epidemiologists are very reluctant to assign causes – much “likely”, “indicates” etc. These are the ones you should pay attention to. The ones that say “shows that x is the cause” should always be treated as suspect. Because like all stats, the data is what it is, and it is NOT everything. Nor can you ever be sure you have controlled for everything, nor that you even have all the relevant data. So it should always make you pause and (re)consider your assumptions etc, and maybe try a few things to see if “indications” firm up or not. That’s called “evidence based medicine”, and is very important – at least it is if you want the approach the truth.

    Unlike engineering, medicine NEEDS such statistical analysis – tests, treatments et al are never based on 100% or even 90%, they are mostly in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s for efficiacy etc. That means many and various tests to get a handle on what is actually going on, and many and varied treatments to control the issues. Like the FLCCC treatment regimes for COVID – not JUST IVM, but in combination with mildly antiviral drugs like AZM, anti-coagulants like aspirin, dietary supplements like Vit D and C, Zinc etc. Each by themselves are marginal, but used together, there is often “greater than the sum of their parts” things going on – synergistic actions are aplenty in medicine, and it’s more likely any treatment will consist of multiple parts than just a single “wonder drug” (although some do exist).

    So, no – all epidemiology is not bullshit. Like economics, there are many out there who will “baffle you with bullshit”, but there are also plenty who are genuine. The difficulty, as ever, is finding the “good guys”. Unlike, say, climate science, medicine has (so far) a much better track record on this score – most highly regarded epidemiologists got their rep by being very careful and conservative in their claims. Naturally, this is unacceptable in the political landscape, but it is reality. So you are certainly right to be sceptical of the politicians “pet” epidemiologists – they are most likely the ones who give solid answers even when the data is uncertain. They are also most likely to be the ones who are not quite so highly regarded in the medical community.


    Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *