,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This WaPo investigation is interesting.
But I wish it gave me broader context: What does it mean precisely when a pharmacy has a disproportionate amount of pain pills? What solid conclusions can we draw?
Or is this just, look at what we can do w/maps?
washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/…
But I wish it gave me broader context: What does it mean precisely when a pharmacy has a disproportionate amount of pain pills? What solid conclusions can we draw?
Or is this just, look at what we can do w/maps?
washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/…
Can we conclude that this means a lot of people in certain neighborhoods use pain pills?
Maybe, but not necessarily, depending on presence of say hospitals nearby
Can we conclude there are more people addicted to pain pills in those neighborhoods
Maybe but not necessarily...
Maybe, but not necessarily, depending on presence of say hospitals nearby
Can we conclude there are more people addicted to pain pills in those neighborhoods
Maybe but not necessarily...
Take for e.g. this map of D.C.
First thought: Wow look at # pain pills near Capitol Hill. Does this mean residents there more prone to addiction?
Second thought: Well, actually, maybe but the data doesn't conclude that. A lot of people work near Capitol Hill and commute home
First thought: Wow look at # pain pills near Capitol Hill. Does this mean residents there more prone to addiction?
Second thought: Well, actually, maybe but the data doesn't conclude that. A lot of people work near Capitol Hill and commute home
Certainly possible.
But the WaPo story doesn't give the necessary context or let us draw firm conclusions from the data
So what is the point they are trying to convey? I suppose just the vastness of the issue?
But the WaPo story doesn't give the necessary context or let us draw firm conclusions from the data
So what is the point they are trying to convey? I suppose just the vastness of the issue?
