I use this one: Mary's virgin explanation made Joseph suspect upstairs neighbour

The careful reader (who knows the approximate absolute risk) will see this even if only the RR is presented, but I also think many would look at 1.25 and think this is important.

I agree in principle, but I think this ties back to the comment about vibes. I discussed results with a student today, RR of 1.25 RD of 0.2% (as I recall). The RR supports her hypothesis that something is going on, but the RD suggests it is clinically irrelevant in the given context.

Linear algebra, or as it was known among the physicists at my university: the most import subject you will ever forget

I can't help but wonder, if there was a group of people with a better than average immune system would they actually benefit more from (typical*) vaccines? Not that this in any way makes him right about anything.

*I don't know much about vaccines or how they work, so unsure if "typical" makes sense

If that case, I suggest you take the car

for the first point, I think I have seen small/average/large for gestational age being sorted as average/large/small (both on an axis and in legends). For the second it could be something like this (www.flickr.com/photos/65802...)

likewise, if values of a continuous variable are treated as if categorical so that distance between values are the same regardless of the actual distances.

one of those figures where something is plotted within levels of an ordinal variable and the ordinal variable is sorted alphabetically (e.g., "high" "low" "medium") rather than by the natural order.

I agree, the framework is a good (least crappy?) solution for observational studies, but the term TTE itself is like Feathers McGraw's rubber glove. (Some) Reader think they see a friendly chicken when they are in fact staring at a villainous penguin

Thank you for the swift reply - at first I did not realize how close the book and the package (and by extension the github page) are to eachother, but it makes sense to have it all in one place. I will report there if I find anything else :)

In the same chapter there is also a 95% CI for a ratio going below 0 - is that a bug or a feature?

Hi, just started reading your book - impressive work. Do you have a place for reporting errors etc. specifically for the book?

I would probably expect that the test below (Chapter 4) was for ratios being equal to 1, but it appears that tests are for ratios being 0. Am I missing a point here?

but centuries vary in number of leap years too - an let's not forget those leap seconds

"ugler i mosen" is peculiar - I think it's from Denmark where it was originally "ulve i mosen" (wolves on the moor), but as wolves became extinct in Denmark it became "ugler i mosen". Norway must have taken the written word rather than the meaning (I believe it should have been "ugler i myren" then)