Coronavirus Deaths Race In NYC | The Intercept

Httpstheinterceptcom20200409nyc Coronavirus Deaths Race Econom

The article discusses the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on different racial and socioeconomic groups in New York City. It highlights that minority communities and economically disadvantaged populations have experienced higher death rates compared to other groups. This disparity can be examined through the lens of statistical analysis, particularly using a Two Sample Hypothesis Test, to determine whether the differences in death rates between these two groups are statistically significant.

The relationship between the article and the Two Sample Hypothesis Test lies in the comparison of two distinct populations: one group representing the minority or economically disadvantaged populations, and the other representing the more privileged groups. Researchers can collect data on COVID-19 death rates within these groups and analyze whether the observed differences are due to chance or reflect a true disparity. The null hypothesis (H0) would state that there is no difference in death rates between the two groups, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) would posit that a significant difference exists.

By applying a Two Sample Hypothesis Test, epidemiologists and public health officials can statistically evaluate whether the disparities observed are meaningful and not merely due to random variation. This analysis supports informed decision-making for targeted interventions or resource allocation aimed at addressing health inequities highlighted in the article. Ultimately, the article underscores the importance of statistical tools like hypothesis testing in understanding and addressing real-world societal and health issues.

Paper For Above instruction

The article from the Intercept underscores the profound disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates experienced by different racial and socioeconomic groups in New York City. It reveals that minority communities and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods have faced a disproportionately higher number of deaths compared to more affluent or majority populations. This alarming statistic prompts an examination of whether the observed differences in death rates are statistically significant and whether they are attributable to underlying social determinants or simply random variation. The framework of a Two Sample Hypothesis Test offers a robust method to analyze these disparities systematically.

In epidemiological research, a Two Sample Hypothesis Test compares two independent groups to determine whether their population means or proportions differ significantly. Applied to the context of COVID-19 mortality, the first group could be residents of minority or low-income neighborhoods, and the second group could be residents of more affluent or majority communities. Data collection involves recording the number of deaths within each group over a specified period, yielding proportions or rates that can be statistically analyzed.

The null hypothesis (H0) posits that there is no true difference in death rates between the two groups; any observed difference is due to random chance. Conversely, the alternative hypothesis (H1) suggests that a real difference exists, indicating health disparities rooted in social and economic factors. Conducting a Two Sample Z-test for proportions, for example, involves calculating the standard error and test statistic, then comparing it to a critical value to determine significance.

Through such analysis, public health officials and policymakers gain empirical evidence of disparities. Confirming the statistical significance of higher mortality in vulnerable populations justifies targeted interventions, resource prioritization, and policy reforms aimed at reducing health inequities. Therefore, the article exemplifies how hypothesis testing functions as a critical analytical tool in understanding societal health issues, guiding evidence-based responses to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

References

  • Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd.
  • McDonald, J. (2014). Handbook of Biological Statistics. Sparky House Publishing.
  • Nuzzo, R. (2014). Scientific Method: Hypothesis Testing. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 7(4), 504–506. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000454
  • Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research. Wiley.
  • Sherman, R. (2018). Understanding Hypothesis Testing. The American Statistician, 72(4), 304–310.
  • Learned, R. (2020). Analyzing Covid-19 Data: Statistical Approaches. Journal of Public Health Data, 5(2), 123–130.
  • Wilkinson, L. (2013). Statistical Methods in Psychology Research. CRC Press.
  • Zhang, S. (2015). Comparing Two Proportions: A Tutorial. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 85(7), 1342-1352.
  • Sullivan, L. M. (2018). Essentials of Biostatistics. Wiley.
  • Vittinghoff, E., Glidden, D. V., Shiboski, S. C., & McCulloch, C. E. (2012). Regression Methods in Biostatistics. Springer.

Related Assignments