This week the British media have gone to town with the information that the death toll from the corona virus in this country has now passed that of Italy. The conclusion that is drawn from this is that the figure implies some kind of disgraceful failing. Aside from the fact that it conveys a kind of concealed nationalism (surely we can do better than the wretched Italians) this kind of statement reveals the habitual statistical illiteracy of large sections of the British press.
Yes, indeed, more people have now died as a result of the virus in this country than in Italy. The observation fails to take into account, however, at least two important data. In the first place the population of Britain is more than seven million larger than that of Italy. Secondly, the age structure of the two populations is not comparable. The population of Italy is skewed towards the older end as a result of high levels of emigration, and older people are more prone than younger people to die from the virus. When calculated as a rate per 100,000 of the population (particularly where data are examined on an age-specific basis) the likelihood if death from the coronavirus is actually marginally lower in Britain than in Italy.
I am constantly irritated by the inability of even experienced journalists in the country to make sense of the most elementary statistical arguments. Possibly this is a result of a skewed pattern of recruitment, so that journalists are recruited disproportionately from applicants with arts degrees. Whatever the reason, it does seem that the old adage has a grain of truth in it. “Don’t always believe what you read in the press.” I have very little indeed in common with Donald Trump, but I do sympathise in some respects with his distrust of “fake news”. Savour that point of agreement: there will not be many of them.