July 2, 2012
Stat of the Week Competition: June 30 – July 6 2012
Each week, we would like to invite readers of Stats Chat to submit nominations for our Stat of the Week competition and be in with the chance to win an iTunes voucher.
Here’s how it works:
- Anyone may add a comment on this post to nominate their Stat of the Week candidate before midday Friday July 6 2012.
- Statistics can be bad, exemplary or fascinating.
- The statistic must be in the NZ media during the period of June 30 – July 6 2012 inclusive.
- Quote the statistic, when and where it was published and tell us why it should be our Stat of the Week.
Next Monday at midday we’ll announce the winner of this week’s Stat of the Week competition, and start a new one.
The fine print:
- Judging will be conducted by the blog moderator in liaison with staff at the Department of Statistics, The University of Auckland.
- The judges’ decision will be final.
- The judges can decide not to award a prize if they do not believe a suitable statistic has been posted in the preceeding week.
- Only the first nomination of any individual example of a statistic used in the NZ media will qualify for the competition.
- Employees (other than student employees) of the Statistics department at the University of Auckland are not eligible to win.
- The person posting the winning entry will receive a $20 iTunes voucher.
- The blog moderator will contact the winner via their notified email address and advise the details of the $20 iTunes voucher to that same email address.
- The competition will commence Monday 8 August 2011 and continue until cancellation is notified on the blog.
Statistic: A majority of voters want information on schools’ achievement in national standards to be released publicly for comparison
The headline reads “Publish schools’ results, says majority”. It’s not till the last paragraph that the dataset that makes up the “majority” is revealed. In this case a poll of 750 people.
Source: Herald-DigiPoll survey
Date: 30th June 2012
This is an example of statistical laziness, that feeds the narrative that the paper wants to lead. In this case – that league tables are needed because the public say so.
Instead of a valid discussion about what national league tables actually mean and how they are constructed – which would be one involving valid and real statistical data, we have statistics supporting an opinion.
Sadly, the language and strength of statistics leads the headline as a way to justify the position, instead of the actual content of the debate justifying the position.
12 years ago
Statistic: Men over 50 nation’s biggest drinkers (yeah right)
Source: New Zealand Herald
Date: 5 July 2012
In fact men over 50 are NOT the nation’s biggest drinkers according to the statistics given in the paper edition of that story. Men aged 35-49 are.
Men aged 50+ are 14% of the population and consume 28% of the alcohol
Men aged 35-49 are 9% of the population and consume 22% of the alcohol. PER PERSON this is higher than for men 50+.
Surely “biggest drinkers” means per person not per arbitrarily sized age group.
Not only that, it’s a pretty shoddy table to boot. It leaves out statistics for women aged 35-49.
Here is the table. 2nd column is % alcohol consumed by the age group, 3rd column is the % of the population in that age group, the 4th column is my calculation of the 2nd column divided by the 3rd to get the relative consumption per person
M50+ 28 14 2.00
M35-49 22 9 2.44
M25-24 13 6 2.17
W50+ 10 16 0.63
M18-24 8.3 5 1.66
W18-24 4.9 5 0.98
W25-34 5.6 6 0.93
12 years ago
Statistic: “a 10% increase in the minimum price of alcohol reduces its consumption by 16% relative to other drinks”
Source: Newstalk ZB
Date: 4 July 2012
Boy, it’s hard to say what to make of this one. The journalists are quoting Connor correctly; the press release is here.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14119007/who-is-advising-the-pm-on-alcohol-reform/
But the study she’s almost certainly referencing is this one:
http://www.vsnews.fr/etudes/Does-Minimum-Pricing-Reduce-Alcohol-Consumption.pdf
That study finds that if you increase the price of a specific type of alcohol by 10%, that category’s consumption drops 16%. But that’s not the same thing as a hike in the minimum price of all alcohol: many drinkers switch across product categories depending on what’s cheapest. When the study does try to estimate the effect of an across-the-board 10% price increase, they find only a 3.4% consumption reduction.
The press release seems awfully misleading.
12 years ago
Statistic: “a 10% increase in the minimum price of alcohol reduces its consumption by 16% relative to other drinks”
Source: Newstalk ZB
Date: 4 July
The Canadian study in question finds that if you increase the price of one alcoholic product, demand for that product drops substantially, but much of this is due to shifting to other product categories. The same study says that, if you simulate the effects of an across the board price increase (which is more akin to a minimum price on a per standard drink basis), a 10% price increase results in only a 3.4% reduction in consumption – a figure that’s in line with the international literature on the price elasticity of alcohol demand, and a fifth of the figure cited in the press here as being the likely effect of implementing minimum prices.
Discussed here:
http://www.offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/price-elasticity-of-alcohol-demand.html
http://www.offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/odoriferous-statements.html
12 years ago