It's not discussed in the article. The article discussed, race, sex, etc. and then makes an assertion that it "wouldn't move much from 4.9."
That's completely false when using geolocation. We can estimate from crime stats easily that a tour of the country avoiding the highest murder rate parts of the country would land you very close to a zero murder rate.
Among healthy adults, that's essentially a near zero chance of death.
That isn't surprising. Attending a festival in a desert with little oversight and lots of drugs is obviously more dangerous than buying groceries in white suburbia.
4.9 is simply not the relevant number unless your goal is to try to say that the event is on par with taking a walk in the wrong part of town.
But I'm certain that wasn't the point of the article. It's dishonest, is my point.
Exactly. Obviously, if your threshold risk factor is low then your decision as a low risk American precludes you from attending events where the risk for violent or other death is increased.
So if the goal is to help those individuals make a decision about whether or not they should attend such an event (as appears to be the goal of this article) then the data shouldn't be distorted by diluting what would otherwise be very relevant risk factors.
This article is essentially what happens when you give a marketer or journalist a license in society to act like a data scientist despite their having no qualifying background for doing so.
They do exactly what we expect; they lie confidently, because they can't fathom that maybe discussing science intelligibly requires actual education in science. They got a degree, maybe in advertising, so they feel that we as a society implicitly deem it okay for them to destroy the basic trust that we otherwise share amongst one another. After all they have a certificate in writing bullshit, so we're all supposed to just read and enjoy it.
Dear author, get bent. Science ain't your fucking industry. Next time do you job; ask scientists to weigh in and just give us their opinions. You're not qualified to give us yours!
trimethylpurine · · focus · HN ↗
You need to exclude those areas to lower that number before comparing.
Imagine a tour of the US that includes the more dangerous parts of Oakland, Memphis, and the like.
Most people wouldn't book that tour, so the base line risk factor you're using isn't relevant for most people.
compiler-guy · · focus · HN ↗
trimethylpurine · · focus · HN ↗
That's completely false when using geolocation. We can estimate from crime stats easily that a tour of the country avoiding the highest murder rate parts of the country would land you very close to a zero murder rate.
Among healthy adults, that's essentially a near zero chance of death.
That isn't surprising. Attending a festival in a desert with little oversight and lots of drugs is obviously more dangerous than buying groceries in white suburbia.
4.9 is simply not the relevant number unless your goal is to try to say that the event is on par with taking a walk in the wrong part of town.
But I'm certain that wasn't the point of the article. It's dishonest, is my point.
bigiain · · focus · HN ↗
trimethylpurine · · focus · HN ↗
So if the goal is to help those individuals make a decision about whether or not they should attend such an event (as appears to be the goal of this article) then the data shouldn't be distorted by diluting what would otherwise be very relevant risk factors.
This article is essentially what happens when you give a marketer or journalist a license in society to act like a data scientist despite their having no qualifying background for doing so.
They do exactly what we expect; they lie confidently, because they can't fathom that maybe discussing science intelligibly requires actual education in science. They got a degree, maybe in advertising, so they feel that we as a society implicitly deem it okay for them to destroy the basic trust that we otherwise share amongst one another. After all they have a certificate in writing bullshit, so we're all supposed to just read and enjoy it.
Dear author, get bent. Science ain't your fucking industry. Next time do you job; ask scientists to weigh in and just give us their opinions. You're not qualified to give us yours!