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.
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.