Statistical Nonsense

Just read an article where the point being made was that 17% of Americans don't favor mandatory vaccinations.  Now that's not a particularly high number and a lot of them apparently are basing this on an article that was discredited linking vaccinations to autism, but it is a sad use of statistics.

First, if you don't have a child in the age group involved your opinion is likely to be about random.  Second, the word mandatory is always going to create some resistance, people don't like it.

So the article pointed out some of the prominent people, including our current President and Ben Carson (a doctor) who have expressed concerns.  However bottom line I read a story that really told me next to nothing.  Did they object to vaccinations or to the Government forcing people to do it? 

Now statistical studies are one way to make sense out of the world, but some things are statistically irrelevant, or maybe not.

Take for instance the increased use of opioids and the election of our current President. The one became an epidemic in parts of this country that swung to him in the election.  A part of me thinks it might be connected but two events happening at the same time do not mean one causes or is even related to the other.

During a period when actual unemployment decreased tremendously, large parts of the country feel it is still a major problem.  One possible reason for this is that the new jobs are not as good as the old jobs were.  So taking a low paying job at a retail establishment may leave the ex-factory worker feeling like he is really still unemployed.

Take resistance to things like Obamacare.  Without arguing the merits of the plan, the articles talk about increasing premiums and deductibles.  The increase in premiums and increased deductibles are not proven to be caused by the law, we see a similar trend in employee provided healthcare, it is more likely related to the aging of America and the increased cost of care.  However, take two facts that seem to have something in common (i.e. medicine) and treat them as causative. 

Terrorism is another example of people misusing statistics.  The level of fear related to terrorism is way our of proportion to the actual risk, especially in this country.  Also banning groups of people to prevent it has no statistical validity that I can find. 

Where the scientific community has provided valid statistical studies and evidence say Climate Change, we see many people refusing to accept it.  It is pretty much irrefutable but we are willing to believe that a 5 year old refugee is a threat but the millions of tons of carbon being released by a factory isn't.

Just nonsense.

About Polls

Polls, polls polls, so many come out every week we get quite conflicting forecasts.

With the number of polls going on you would think we are all being inundated with people asking for our opinion.  Who are the people in the polls?

Since I don't answer the phone is I don't know the caller and don't click on questionable links I know I'm not in there.

In fact it is a big generally undisclosed issue with polls about who they are reaching and how representative that group is.  They publish a margin of error, but I doubt that's as accurate as it should be based on the sample problems.

A perfect poll would get  a random snapshot of the people of this country.  That would includes all demographic categories and be verifiable.  This is essentially an impossible task so the pollsters have to adjust for this in some way.

I'm not questioning the statistical skills or dedication of the pollsters, although some do have a point of view, but they tackle an impossibility and have to adjust for the unreachable.

So ultimately it becomes a bit of a Scientific Wild Assed Guess (SWAG) meaning its correct if all the uncertainties sort of balance out.

What is actually surprising is how close they come, much of the time considering beside the people they can't reach, the possibility that the people they do reach are lying to them.

Now most American are honest and reliable, but some aren't and giving the opportunity they may take delight in trying to hack a poll.

Its hard to say who is underrepresented in the polling although there have been some allegations that certain Trump supporters are embarrassed to tell the pollsters they support him.  This doesn't seem like any of the Trump supporters I have met, but of course it is possible.

Now some sites average the polls together to get a less variable outcome.  Of course there are statistical issues with this as well, but it is likely to be more accurate than any individual poll.

With two months to go it is likely that we will be bombarded with hundreds of polls and many will show significant variations.  They are indicative of what they sample and as a statistical person I find them interesting, but remember they are trying to predict using flawed samples and statistical adjustments.  They may be presented by the media as conclusive when in fact they are SWAG.
This is a good discussion on how to read polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/13-tips-for-reading-general-election-polls-like-a-pro/

Lying with Statistics

If the statistics don't tell the story you want, you can probably find a way to make them fit it.

Take the recent AP stat that half of Clinton's meetings were with donors to the Clinton foundation. Well no, it was half of the meetings after the vast majority of meetings were excluded as being "job" related.

Even then, half the meetings were to people who didn't donate so it sort of makes the pay to play idea inaccurate.

So AP twisted the statistics to create a story, not the first time and not the only organization.

We see statistics used like this all the time and it is generally accepted at face value by the majority of people.

In many cases the underlying story gives the actual facts and if you read the AP story, nothing wrong was actually reported.  Some innuendo and misinformation but nothing factual.

Just modern yellow journalism I guess.

Pity.