"I bet if they reached a result of 150% they would not have realized something is seriously wrong with their calculation." - correct!
I'm unsure who these people are but I do know their methodology is seriously flaky and the fact that they are not responding to requests is of concern
Correct. I would hate to think that, having access to the later data in June when they published, they had advance knowledge of the upcoming rates and consciously or subconsciously made a calculation that was in keeping with the later raw data that they had in front of them
Confirmation bias on the part of good actors ?? Possible тАж. But birth rates have plummeted. What about all the high misscairage rates and still births we have heard about from nurses and OBGYNS?
"I bet if they reached a result of 150% they would not have realized something is seriously wrong with their calculation." - correct!
I'm unsure who these people are but I do know their methodology is seriously flaky and the fact that they are not responding to requests is of concern
The funny thing is that they inflated the risk and reached a concerningly high value but still said "it's all good"
Correct. I would hate to think that, having access to the later data in June when they published, they had advance knowledge of the upcoming rates and consciously or subconsciously made a calculation that was in keeping with the later raw data that they had in front of them
Confirmation bias on the part of good actors ?? Possible тАж. But birth rates have plummeted. What about all the high misscairage rates and still births we have heard about from nurses and OBGYNS?