Thank. Your response makes perfect sense. I don’t have any URLs with anything better, but even if I could find some it would in all likelihood require piecing together limited information from different sources. You are so right that taking everything from one source is much more difficult to criticize or refute.
Thanks Bill. Research-wise, I just recently "drank from the fire hose" (from the source of CDC reports) trying to find a follow-up report, but didn't find one inside of the years of 2015-2020. When COVID reports began, I gave up the search.
I love this theorem and this analysis. I’m curious why you used the 1991-2001 time frame to calculate the mean and standard deviation instead of using the 1991-2015 figures.
I used that analysis because it was the original CDC analysis published which broke down serious and fatal AERs inside of a single report (both the numerators and denominators were officially agreed upon). But you may be aware of follow-up work that I am not yet aware of.
Having the stamp of approval because of coming entirely from one officially-published report, the rates and the variation in rates are beyond reproach. If this type of all-in-one official analysis was repeated -- another official report, with figures ending in 2015 -- then I will find it and use it, instead.
While I might have it before you answer back, did you have a URL for the longer time window?
Thank. Your response makes perfect sense. I don’t have any URLs with anything better, but even if I could find some it would in all likelihood require piecing together limited information from different sources. You are so right that taking everything from one source is much more difficult to criticize or refute.
Thanks Bill. Research-wise, I just recently "drank from the fire hose" (from the source of CDC reports) trying to find a follow-up report, but didn't find one inside of the years of 2015-2020. When COVID reports began, I gave up the search.
I love this theorem and this analysis. I’m curious why you used the 1991-2001 time frame to calculate the mean and standard deviation instead of using the 1991-2015 figures.
I used that analysis because it was the original CDC analysis published which broke down serious and fatal AERs inside of a single report (both the numerators and denominators were officially agreed upon). But you may be aware of follow-up work that I am not yet aware of.
Having the stamp of approval because of coming entirely from one officially-published report, the rates and the variation in rates are beyond reproach. If this type of all-in-one official analysis was repeated -- another official report, with figures ending in 2015 -- then I will find it and use it, instead.
While I might have it before you answer back, did you have a URL for the longer time window?