• WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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
        2
        ·
        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.