Most numbers, as reported in the media, advertising, “news” and so on — even in “professional” papers — have little or no actual meaning.
Example: “Four out of five doctors…” finish that sentence any way you want. Short version: it has no meaning without the following additional data: how many doctors total were surveyed? Was it a survey? What kind of doctors? (Medical doctors or professors of history?) Were the doctors offered any sort of “incentive” to get behind that what-ever-it-is? What was the 5th doctor’s reasoning?
Example: Number of CoVid deaths. Absolutely meaningless(1) without some context. Such as, how many deaths have occurred from “regular flu” in the same reporting frame? When reporting total number of CoVid cases (not just fatalities), how many regular flu cases were there at the same time? How many ordinary colds(2)? How many people total died from any cause in the same reporting period? Without such other numbers we have no idea whether to be alarmed by the numbers or not.
Example: margin of error. ALL numbers, especially when from something at a large scale, have errors in them. Voting ballot counts, survey results, number of deaths, number of beans in a jar: they all have a margin of error, none of them can be taken as absolutely correct. Not just the count but the method of counting matters. How was the survey made? How was the count done? Who checked? Who double checked? What security / verification was used on the results? Who might have a vested interest in making the count come out a certain way? Who paid for the count or study? All of this and a lot more besides is a factor in judging the accuracy of the reported result(s).
Example: A fellow who was killed in a car crash, but tested positive for CoVid was listed as “covid related death.” This is an example of a simple error in counting (a poorly thought out legal requirement forcing an inaccuracy into the numbers). The parameters for calling it a CoVid death are incorrect and misleading. It inflates the numbers. By how much does it inflate those numbers? Impossible to even guess; insufficient data.
There’s an old saying: there are three kinds of lies.
Lies. Damn lies. And Statistics.
The problem with that is not statistics itself, but rather how statistics is used, or rather misused. Report the margin of error, the method of count and the level of bias of the agents involved. Otherwise, stop reporting “4 out of 5 Doctors prefer Blah-Blah Cigarettes.”
It’s a real ad. Really, truly. ALL of the cigarettes had their “doctor ads.” This one, though, actually says “20,679 physicians say…” It even goes so far as to tell us “the figures have been checked and certified by” so-and-so (in the extremely tiny print), but that still doesn’t tell us the method of survey, the total number surveyed, nor the margin of error, nor what vested interests had influence on the final results. What if 123,000 other doctors actually said “Nonsense!” to the question? What was the exact question? Not reported. No idea. So even here, the report is meaningless, without further context.
Get your numbers straight! Get the margin of error. Give me the context for the reported numbers. Or stop reporting. Without that data, it’s fake news and you’re just telling me what to think, not giving me the data. Walter Cronkite would fire you from his staff in a heartbeat, if you could even have gotten hired for his staff in the first place.
One of the last of the True News Casters. There have been a hand full since Walter (even a couple or three current ones), but the True News Caster is mostly an extinct species. Without a minimum level of education and personal integrity and dedication to the facts, it isn’t “news” any more. Walter would never told you what to think about something. He might have led you in a direction, but he always left the conclusions for you to draw, or not, as you saw fit.
That’s “thirty” for this edition. (Example of a number without a context that does has a meaning! [It’s an old Radio term.] Go figure…)
[30]
(1) Ok, not absolutely meaningless. It is a report of a number of deaths, and that always matters. But… well, keep reading above.
(2) Good luck getting that number. Colds are not reported. Nor are they even rigorously diagnosed. “Cold” symptoms can show up for a lot of reasons, the rhino virus being only one of those reasons, and food allergies, pollen, fatigue and stress are each more likely causes. Short version: no one tracks incidents of colds, nor even takes it very seriously, even though there is nothing “normal” about getting a cold (don’t confuse “normal” with “common” — they ain’t the same thing). It indicates a failure in your immune system, unless it’s the very first cold you’ve ever had. [Note: I am not a doctor… blah, blah, blah, etc, etc. Use your own judgement here.]