Shouldn’t the Office For National Statistics be required to provide oversight of any government surveys which rely on statistical analysis to ensure there is no chicanery? If the ONS can be trusted to act impartially.....
It's crazy. You would think that to justify a ban on self-harming behaviours most people don't do, it should be supported by more people than are currently not doing it.
So let's say that 85% neither smoke or vape, then you should want more than 85% to support your ban or restriction, because that means there are some edge cases of people currently smoking or vaping who support having themselves prohibited by government for their own good. If it's less than 85% then there is no-one who believes a prohibition would benefit themselves, and so the prohibition isn't needed.
Frustrating but also unsurprising. No transparency about the processes of data collection, how are the public meant to put any trust or faith in their government..
Shouldn’t the Office For National Statistics be required to provide oversight of any government surveys which rely on statistical analysis to ensure there is no chicanery? If the ONS can be trusted to act impartially.....
It's crazy. You would think that to justify a ban on self-harming behaviours most people don't do, it should be supported by more people than are currently not doing it.
So let's say that 85% neither smoke or vape, then you should want more than 85% to support your ban or restriction, because that means there are some edge cases of people currently smoking or vaping who support having themselves prohibited by government for their own good. If it's less than 85% then there is no-one who believes a prohibition would benefit themselves, and so the prohibition isn't needed.
Frustrating but also unsurprising. No transparency about the processes of data collection, how are the public meant to put any trust or faith in their government..
Great writing! Enjoyed reading this :)
Brilliant work as ever. Thanks Chris.