Is that a big number?
2021-Dec-04In which CBC news fails to answer an obvious question
I spotted two misleading statistics on CBC yesterday. I think that both have a similar cause: there wasn't enough context for the reader to easily see that they were being misled.
Vaccine efficacy: just, like, your opinion man
On 2021-Dec-03, CBC News posted an opinion piece that argued public health measures are "government overreach." As part of this argument, Richarz tries to cast doubt on the vaccine efficacy:
And now, with new case numbers in Ontario essentially split evenly between the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated -- On COVID restrictions, our governments keep firing up the gaslights and shifting the goalposts
He included an image to back up this claim:
A slam dunk?
This looks serious; the implication is that vaccines have no effect on your chance of ending up in the hospital. Why do we need a vaccine mandate in that case?
Unfortunately for Richarz, he left an important clue in the screenshot:
What's all that about?
Following the author's link takes you to the right page, but it shows a dramatically different graph:
That's not what you claimed, Richarz
This is using the rate per 100k people. It shows you're about 4x more likely to go to the hospital if you're unvaccinated. Further, this is the default view; the author had to specifically chose the raw case counts, rather than the rate per 100k people. The rate per 100k people shows the amazing efficacy of the vaccines.
The problem
The author is aware that there are far more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people:
in Ontario, even as the province exceeded by weeks its vaccination and case number targets -- On COVID restrictions, our governments keep firing up the gaslights and shifting the goalposts
Richarz chose the misleading graph -- it is not the default; presumably because the publisher knows the raw case count is misleading.
In my opinion, Richarz is knowingly misleading CBC News' readers. CBC's Editorial team failed to ask one simple question: "is that a big number?"
Answering that question would've immediately blown a hole in the side of Richarz's argument. Vaccines are effective. There is an obvious public benefit for vaccination: Less pressure on hospitals.
Ambulances: better than ever?
Also on 2021-Dec-03, CBC News reported on the announcement that paramedics, EMS, etc. will get more advanced training. At the end of the article, they reported the Minister of Health's note about how much more we're spending on ambulance services:
He [Adrian Dix] said the budget for the ambulance service has gone from $424 million to $559 million since 2017 as it hired more paramedics and dispatchers and purchased dozens of ambulances. -- British Columbia expanding life-saving tools available to first responders: health minister
An increase of $424 million to $559 million looks really good at first glace. About 32% in only 4 years. However, it hides two important factors: population growth and inflation.
Inflation
The Bank of Canada reports that $424 million in 2017 is equivalent to $466 million in 2021. This makes the report a little less rosy; only a 20% increase. Good, but not as good as a casual reading.
This is a common trick in many places, but it's most common when looking wages. The assumption is that workers should be happy with any increase, even if it's a real-terms pay cut.
Population growth
BCStats population app shows that there were about 4,929,384 people in BC in 2017. The BC government was spending about $94.54 per person per year for ambulance services (2021 equivalent dollars).
The same app reports that the BC population is projected to be 5,194,137 people in 2021. By 2021, with a spend of $559, we expect the BC government to be spending about $107.62 per person per year.
This is an increase of 14%. Half the amount that was immediately apparent.
The problem
14% is a respectable increase, but it is not nearly as good as the initially apparent 32%. This makes the BC Government appear more generous than they are. Especially if there's any reason to believe that ambulance service is facing a higher demand than in 2017. A savvy reader might rightly ask if demand is 14% higher than in 2017, if service was acceptable in 2017, or a host of other interesting questions useful to properly evaluate the government's performance. They're instead left with the rosy picture that we've added over $100 million (!) to the ambulance service budget.
The journalist could've avoided this if, when reporting Dix's statement, they'd asked themselves "is this a big number?" This trick gives the reader important context on the government's performance. I support the BC NDP Government, but they should still be held to high standards.
I also expect better of Adrian Dix. Just say "a 14% real-terms increase since 2017" then cite it. Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes and hope a reporter misses the trick.
Conclusion
I love publicly-funded journalism. I think a news outlet unburdened by political or profit motivations is an excellent counter-weight to the for-profit news. I listen to CBC programmes daily and check CBC News several times a day.
However, I also have high standards. The CBC has erred in these cases. The editorial team should make sure that any facts and figures reported with context. It's far too easy to lie or mislead with statistics since they have an air of precision and infallibility. An editorial checklist could've helped here.