News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-... by ceejayoz on Thursday December 15, 2022 @03:51PM (#34005565)
> Consider a depoliticized example: you do 30 autopsies on people who had recently been to a particular location, let's say a certain grocery store in town. Enough people go to this grocery store that it's not uncommon for way more than 30 recent visitors to be dead unexpectedly by random chance. Further, let's say in the general population, a tiny fraction of people die of a certain food-borne illness. You have a pretty good guess what that fraction is.

It's not just "pick 30 recently dead who went to the store", though.

You've picked 30 people who died after eating at the grocery store's salad bar, and used that as evidence that the salad bar is dangerous, without checking how many skipped the salad bar and died anyways.

Re:Autopsy-based characterization of myocarditis after anti-... by cool_dude85 on Thursday December 15, 2022 @04:02PM (#34005716)
>You've picked 30 people who died after eating at the grocery store's salad bar, and used that as evidence that the salad bar is dangerous, without checking how many skipped the salad bar and died anyways.

The answer to this question would also be socially and politically relevant and warrant its own study. But that doesn't make the author's study unsound or unable to serve as evidence, like you said.