> 1) "23% more likely to die" seems _huge_, but it applies to an already very small chance. The mortality rate just goes from 5.6% to 7%. Using this logic, moving from 0.1% mortality rate to 0.3% would mean "you are 3 times more likely to die".
But that is indeed precisely what it means. The 737 MAX might have increased the accident rate from 1 in a million to 3 in a million, and that would have been a tripling. That is not sensationalistic.
> 3) Where are the confidence intervals?
In the paper: "(7.2% v 5.6%; adjusted difference 1.6%, 95% confidence interval 0.4% to 2.8%; P=0.01)"
But that is indeed precisely what it means. The 737 MAX might have increased the accident rate from 1 in a million to 3 in a million, and that would have been a tripling. That is not sensationalistic.
> 3) Where are the confidence intervals?
In the paper: "(7.2% v 5.6%; adjusted difference 1.6%, 95% confidence interval 0.4% to 2.8%; P=0.01)"