Further, it happens to hit the magical “3.5%” number everyone was throwing around.
Maybe it’s correct and others will vouch for it, analysize, but an estimate that’s significantly higher than an already decently high number that bridges the apparent gap to the 3.5% number almost exactly seems too conveniently on point, like someone wanted to stretch the numbers as little as possible while still hitting the designated number.
It’s based on a thoughtful, rigorous analysis, but that 3.5% number is full of caveats. The fact that anyone regards it as a hard threshold is a sign of how easily nuance is lost on social media.
I’m not seeing any real source here besides one account making a claim?
Further, it happens to hit the magical “3.5%” number everyone was throwing around.
Maybe it’s correct and others will vouch for it, analysize, but an estimate that’s significantly higher than an already decently high number that bridges the apparent gap to the 3.5% number almost exactly seems too conveniently on point, like someone wanted to stretch the numbers as little as possible while still hitting the designated number.
It’s based on a thoughtful, rigorous analysis, but that 3.5% number is full of caveats. The fact that anyone regards it as a hard threshold is a sign of how easily nuance is lost on social media.
While it might be thoughtful, it’s based on like 3 events. It’s crazy to even bother mention the 3.5% threshold with such a trivial sample size.