Lies, damn lies and statistics

[MrsMerryHenry]

I've been thinking about how powerful statistics can be since there are so many stats flying around about this, that and the other to do with the dreaded Swine Flu. So here's my 2 pence' worth. I call it When Good Stats Go Bad:

1 (a) If you are pregnant, you are more likely to have mild SF symptoms (NHS website) than severe ones.
1 (b) If you are pregnant, you are 10 times more likely to have complications (BBC news last week).

• Am I wrong in thinking that the NHS and BBC are contradicting each other? Actually I've just double-checked the NHS page - read under the first sub-heading and it appears to be sort of saying both!

• 200 people in the UK have died from Swine Flu. (But how many have not died...? Oh, look - they don't know ).

• 4 pregnant women in my local hospital are currently hospitalised with Swine Flu (but how many have had it with no complications? Oh, look - they don't know ).

It's not that I'm disputing the figures given, what I want is a BALANCED PERSPECTIVE (or a clear one in the case of the NHS website). Which clearly is not on the cards.

Anyway, I'm primed now to jump on any stats given about any subject under the sun - anyone have any other goodies, whether SF-related or not?

Makes sense to me?

1. They know with normal flu that lots of people have it without developing any symptoms.

1. They don't yet know how many people who are infected with swine flu do not show any symptoms (because swine flu is a new disease in humans).

1. But they did take blood tests from one outbreak in children at a boarding school. And in that particular case, one-third of children had been infected without developing symptoms.

(This may or may not mean 1/3 of people who are infected with swine flu do not have any symptoms, it may be just a one-off or peculiar to children or that environment.)

(Unless you mean they haven't stated the rate of infection without symptoms for ordinary seasonal flu? i.e. whether 1/3 is more or less?)

Edam, it sounds to me like they're saying either:

Of the children who showed no symptoms of flu (i.e. cutting out those with visible symptoms), 1/3 of them turned out to have actually had SF.

My brain is beginning to burn but I'm pretty sure that's different from your point 3, which is covering the whole sample i.e. all the schoolchildren.

It ain't easy, is it?

I thought it would be useful for them to say how many children were in the whole sample and how many of the sample got swine flu. Maybe the intended readers made more sense of it than me.

You are quite right, they were only talking about the children who had not shown any symptoms. One-third of them actually had antibodies to swine flu in their bloodstreams.