With all the usual caveats about lies, damned lies etc, the Information is Beautiful site has some excellent ways of representing data. Personally I feel that the section headed “COVID Treatments size = media attention, roll over bubbles for more info…” is highly subjective.
I wonder what issues might be causing such high IFR in Peru/Mexico
High IFR might be due to sensible testing, or using PCR with a more suitable number of cycles.
Yes the presentation is pretty, some of the information is pretty false! Though I only looked closely at treatments.
That seems very plausible @Evvy_dense, low denominator (eg based on obviously ill people rather than a bonkers chemistry set) would definitely tend to bump up the rate of deaths. Mexico does seem to have quite a problem at the moment.
Got Ivermectin in a ‘potentially-dangerous’ category. Enough for me. Stopped giving it time right there.
I still treat ALL information sources with high scepticism, though with variation, based on whether they seem to have won credibility on their record.
I agree that is the elephant in the room. An archetype of the “garbage in garbage out” truism that academia has lost sight of. Design the research to find what you want, act shocked at the results, get your shill mates to cast an eye over it (and often not even that) and hey presto you have a highly ranked smidgeon of science.
I think I’ve told the story before of how a presentation I gave at a Research Methods seminar was criticized by an Emeritus Professor (just there to make up the numbers) for “citing lots of books”. The course convenor waved him away but the implication was clear that “no one bothers with this nonsense these days, old bean”. Simply whizz through the top few dozen ranked papers (via keyword searches of the abstracts) and pick a shortlist… that’s science inside the bubble.