• ledtasso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it’s within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases examined, but we’re talking about tens of thousands here.

    Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.

    Another important caveat is that we’re assuming the data collection process was not flawed or biased, which is maybe a legitimate concern. But it’s a separate issue entirely.

    • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Having a larger sample size doesn’t necessarily decrease the margin of error. It’s impossible to say if the difference is statistically significant without crunching the numbers.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Meh… Even without seeing the data collection methodology, or the analysis, I’m calling shenanigans. Thats an almost non-existent difference - how do we know the cases where women didn’t get support are primarily women-only spaces (say women’s gym, yoga, etc)?

      Someone’s using this slight difference to push a narrative.