666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 6 days agoDid 9/11 cause a statistically visible "anti-babyboom"?message-squaremessage-square3linkfedilinkarrow-up113arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up113arrow-down1message-squareDid 9/11 cause a statistically visible "anti-babyboom"?666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 6 days agomessage-square3linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-square7EP6vuI@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up2·5 days agohere is the data: 2001 2002 i have the strong feeling they want to mock us by publishing it as pdf, the data in columns. like come on! is there a worse format? just from looking at it i’m searching for a reason why the first monday in september is low on births both in 2001 and 2002? i feel like you would have to look at more years than those two to remove seasonal effects that take place every year.
minus-squareRhynoplaz@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·5 days agoYou should be looking at June birthdays. Those are people conceived in Sept. September birthdays are the result of December holiday parties. Trust me, I have 3 kids with Sept birthdays.
here is the data: 2001 2002
i have the strong feeling they want to mock us by publishing it as pdf, the data in columns. like come on! is there a worse format?
just from looking at it i’m searching for a reason why the first monday in september is low on births both in 2001 and 2002?
i feel like you would have to look at more years than those two to remove seasonal effects that take place every year.
You should be looking at June birthdays. Those are people conceived in Sept.
September birthdays are the result of December holiday parties. Trust me, I have 3 kids with Sept birthdays.