Is it though? Because neither you nor the linked piece have provided any framework by which to call it an outlier. Calling something a statistical outlier has no meaning without statistics.
> There's no accompanying analysis to support its inclusion in the comparison
The case for its inclusion is the fact that it's a country in the region, and we're comparing countries in the region. You don't need a good reason to include it, you need a good reason to exclude it, especially when it's the only one excluded, and again, especially when the title of the piece contains the word "vindicated". Calling something an outlier and causally tossing it aside, especially when it contradicts your point is classic cherry picking.
>>Is it though? Because neither you nor the linked piece have provided any framework by which to call it an outlier. Calling something a statistical outlier has no meaning without statistics.
That's entirely false. The study provided the framework, which is a map and graph showing the countries of Europe and both their population weighted density, and their COVID mortality rates, respectively:
Is it though? Because neither you nor the linked piece have provided any framework by which to call it an outlier. Calling something a statistical outlier has no meaning without statistics.
> There's no accompanying analysis to support its inclusion in the comparison
The case for its inclusion is the fact that it's a country in the region, and we're comparing countries in the region. You don't need a good reason to include it, you need a good reason to exclude it, especially when it's the only one excluded, and again, especially when the title of the piece contains the word "vindicated". Calling something an outlier and causally tossing it aside, especially when it contradicts your point is classic cherry picking.