Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bill Sloman Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: Excess deaths stats - sanity check Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:17:21 +1100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 04:17:35 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8999cc58ca815e678928e469e899534b"; logging-data="2278270"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19e29w6koRzzQpiSlv75qdElw54j5F0VmI=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VLPpg0NMzJd0Jf3gLQ35MCAc0cM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2887 On 9/03/2024 7:07 am, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2024-02-20, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 14-Feb-24 4:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> >>> I just need a sanity check before I raise this with the relevant agency. >>> If you scroll down to "Age specific rates, 2023, 2022, Baseline", and >>> look at the three right hand columns. >>> >>> How can the 2023 figures for each age group be less than the >>> corresponding baseline average, but the all-ages number be greater than >>> the baseline average? >>> >>> If any 2023 age group were above the baseline average, then all-ages >>> number could go either way, because of different total populations in >>> each age group, but with all age groups being below the baseline >>> average, I just don't see it. >>> >>> This seems to happen not just for both sexes, but for each sex >>> individually. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> I should just add that I thought I'd try to prove this impossible using >> algebra, and failed totally. >> >> So then I used Excel, and was able to construct a counter example. So my >> intuition about this was wrong. Of particular significance appears to be >> that the population numbers for the base line age groups will not >> generally be the same as the population numbers for the current data age >> groups. >> >> Oh well. Thanks to those who looked at this. >> >> Sylvia. > > It should be possible to get the numbers that went into this report > under "freedom of information". Perhaps. But Australian civil servants can be remarkably obstructive. They don't like informed criticism, and work hard to frustrate it. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney