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”!
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.
52% versus 55%. 61% vs 68% in public places. Not a lot of difference, within margin of error even.
This isn’t a pole. This isn’t self reported numbers. Those are real life numbers
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”!
All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets.
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.