2351
() ⚠ NSFCucks ⚠
posted ago by rawr_im_a_lion ago by rawr_im_a_lion +2351 / -0
Comments (186)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-14
bubadmt -14 points ago +3 / -17

For the sake of debate, I think it would in fact qualify as a statistically significant difference (5% or more) but I don't know how that plays out realistically.

8
HughGRection 8 points ago +8 / -0

You probably could get a statistically significant result in a test, I would concede that. I was using the term in a much more general sense, though. I don't believe that the difference is enough to warrant people screaming bloody murder at people not wearing masks.

1
bubadmt 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I agree with that. It's way overblown.

1
meatthesoyboi 1 point ago +1 / -0

A statistically significant difference doesn't say anything about the magnitude of the difference. It means, statistically, we believe there to be a difference. Typically if we are 95% sure that there is a difference, then we say it is statistically significant.

For the sake of argument, if wearing a t-shirt over your face reduces your chances of getting the virus by .01%, but we were 99% sure that was true, it would be a statistically significant difference. If they reduced your chances of getting the virus by 10%, but you were only 80% sure, that would not be a significant difference.