• ledtasso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it’s within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases examined, but we’re talking about tens of thousands here.

      Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.

      Another important caveat is that we’re assuming the data collection process was not flawed or biased, which is maybe a legitimate concern. But it’s a separate issue entirely.

      • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Having a larger sample size doesn’t necessarily decrease the margin of error. It’s impossible to say if the difference is statistically significant without crunching the numbers.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meh… Even without seeing the data collection methodology, or the analysis, I’m calling shenanigans. Thats an almost non-existent difference - how do we know the cases where women didn’t get support are primarily women-only spaces (say women’s gym, yoga, etc)?

        Someone’s using this slight difference to push a narrative.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is still a sample, which is therefore subject to a margin of error. Unless you think this data accounts for all CPR given anywhere to anyone, ever.

        For example, if they’d only sampled one man and one woman, and the man reported receiving CPR and the woman reported not, the “study” would show 100% of men and 0% of women receive CPR. Staggering “real-life numbers”!

        • DeadDjembe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m aware. My point is that “real life numbers” still have margins of error. The person to whom I’m responding implied that “real life numbers” aren’t subject to a margin of error.

      • ChewTiger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much all data has margins of error, including “real life data”. The margin of error just often doesn’t matter.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To add to your point with a very clear example: If I did a study to check the average age of people in a country where I mainly checked the age of people living in retirement homes, the margin of error would be huge even if I got the age from hundreds of thousands of people.

          In more general terms: there can be systemic errors due to methodology that no increasing of the number of samples will remove.

          • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you, that’s an important point to make. There’s this belief that big samples are more relevant than small samples, but that is far from the truth.

            The methodology is what’s vital to the data’s significance.