The way you communicate epidemiological findings matters. For example, in your reading, you’ll learn about the perils of reporting relative risk (RR) in cased where population attributable risk (PAR) would make more sense.
Another way that epidemiologists (or the people they work for) can mislead people is with graphics / data visualizations that obfuscate instead of enlightening. If you spend any time watching the news or following the COVID-19 pandemic on social media, you will have seen many examples of this (whether you noticed them or not).
Prompt: For this DQ, find a health-related example of misleading data visualization. It doesn’t have to be related to COVID-19; it can be anything in the health domain. Briefly describe 1) The health issue and why it’s important, 2) The REALITY of the data, 3) How and why the data visualization is misleading, and 4) How the problem(s) with the data visualization could be fixed.
For your follow-on participation: Make at least two substantive responses to your classmates, as usual.Don’t forget to use (and cite) evidence to support your arguments in both the initial response and your follow-on participation. You may use whatever citation style you prefer.
A post of approximately 200-350 words
Your initial response and follow-on discussion posts should cite evidence from sources such as journal articles, reports by governmental and non-governmental organizations, news articles, and / or class lectures. Personal correspondence with global health practitioners or personal experience may also be used, provided that other forms of evidence are also presented. You may choose whatever citation style you are most comfortable with.
Write two substantive posts in response to other students’ initial responses and cite appropriate evidence to support your ideas (details below). Substantive posts do more than say, “I agree,” or “I disagree.” They add new evidence and new insight to the discussion. Follow-on posts should generally be 100-250 words long, but shorter or longer responses are acceptable as long as they make a significant contribution to the week’s discussion.