• oo1@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    yeah, people lose so much credibility when they don’t even control for simple easy things.

    there will always be some confounding factors, but doing rate per population, is rarely hard - andneeded over decade comparisons.

    demographic risk adjustment is more complex, so i’d not expect that. but if it is at least acknowledged, then the article is more credible and will get more (of my) attention.

    media (and i guess their audience) seem to enjoy hype though . . .

    oh shit this is the f.t. i used to think they were among the more credible journo’s. pity.

    • Then lets ask the other way round:

      Shouldn’t we be doing more about increasing heat related deaths, even if it would be primarily caused by more people becoming vulnerable to it, or more people living in the zone that is dangerous?

    • DrNeurohax@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. And shit like this makes me trust financial reporting in general. It’s akin to not accounting for inflation in financial graphs.

      And yes, the risk adjustment can be as complex as they want to make it, but when I clicked, I was expecting a study of some type. Probably my bias kicking in. My first thought was, “Are they kidding?” Then I saw it was from a news source and thought, “Oh, okay… no wait. Still, they know this is bad, right?”

      Still gets those nummy clicks, I guess.