OK. That doesn't change the stats. 25% are NOT being ignored. Any stats like these will always include an unknown category. It IS normal to draw conclusions from stats with an unknown subset. Or do you do math differently than everyone else trained in stats?
Here's what you wrote, in case you decide to edit it after I've already replied, which is what you've been doing:
Just pointing out that any conclusion drawn from ignoring 25% of the data is going to be shaky.
The 225 you're ignoring, out of 918, are the ones who don't show up on the list of people who are vaccinated. I wonder how many of them are not vaccinated, and should be added to the 1 "no dose".
OK. That doesn't change the stats. 25% are NOT being ignored. Any stats like these will always include an unknown category. It IS normal to draw conclusions from stats with an unknown subset. Or do you do math differently than everyone else trained in stats?
Here's what you wrote, in case you decide to edit it after I've already replied, which is what you've been doing:
The 225 you're ignoring, out of 918, are the ones who don't show up on the list of people who are vaccinated. I wonder how many of them are not vaccinated, and should be added to the 1 "no dose".
Nobody is ignoring anything, except for you ignoring the statistical process.
You're ignoring the 225 people in care who do not show up on the "vaccinated" list.
No I’m not