If you got this from a popularization you may have run into a miscommunication about odds ratios versus relative rates? This is one of those known problems that will be around for a long time because its a subtle point and being wrong on the subtle point helps people score “OMG that’s amazing!” points that are rhetorically effective (and get higher click-through when put in a headline) but which are not very accurate.
I have good library access. Send me a PM with your email and I’ll email you the PDF if you want to check the original source for precise numbers :-)
Reading that paper, I feel like a dog being shown a card trick … but gjm hypothesises a reporter being told “almost 10% more” (upper bound of likely selection coefficient ~0.97 edit: ~0.097) and hearing “almost ten times more”. This is alarmingly plausible.
If you got this from a popularization you may have run into a miscommunication about odds ratios versus relative rates? This is one of those known problems that will be around for a long time because its a subtle point and being wrong on the subtle point helps people score “OMG that’s amazing!” points that are rhetorically effective (and get higher click-through when put in a headline) but which are not very accurate.
I have good library access. Send me a PM with your email and I’ll email you the PDF if you want to check the original source for precise numbers :-)
Reading that paper, I feel like a dog being shown a card trick … but gjm hypothesises a reporter being told “almost 10% more” (upper bound of likely selection coefficient ~0.97 edit: ~0.097) and hearing “almost ten times more”. This is alarmingly plausible.
Correction: 0.097, not 0.97.