Regarding small sample sizes, this is important because small sample size
gives large statistical error. However both the post where the recent data
has been posted and the review in the link which you give supply confidence
intervals. As sample size reduces, confidence intervals tend to increase
and the size of these intervals gives an indication of statistical error.
Figs 42a and 42b in the review at
http://www.bovinetb.info/rbct.php show
these confidence
intervals. Judging by their size for data taken in the
adjoining lands where
perturbation was most pronounced, these intervals and
hence error are just
as large, in fact significantly bigger, than the
intervals in the culling
areas where beneficial effects are seen. In fact
these intervals for the
most recent data are smaller than the intervals for
data which exhibited the
effects of perturbation during the cull. In view
of this I am not sure what
the comments regarding small sample size are
referring to. Were they
referring to the sample size of data portraying the
detrimental effects of
perturbation or the continuing beneficial effects
seen in the proactive
areas or perhaps some completely different data?
Regarding what this is
about, the only peer reviewed piece of work which I
am aware of, which has
been released by the MRC, which specifically looks
at how long beneficial
effects last after culling stopped is the paper
titled "The Duration of the
Effects of Repeated Widespread Badger Culling
on Cattle Tuberculosis
Following the Cessation of Culling" which was
published in Feb 2010. This
paper stated under the section titled
"Methodology/Principal Finding" the
following
<START OF EXTRACT>
We monitored cattle TB incidence in
and around RBCT areas after culling
ended. We found that benefits inside
culled areas declined over time, and
were no longer detectable by three
years post-culling.
<END OF EXTRACT>
Judging by results which
have been posted by the MRC since then, this
statement was grossly
misleading. Unfortunately this is a peer-reviewed
piece of work which to
many people is carrying a lot more weight and
influence than the subsequent
postings which are revealing how inept this
statement
was.
Regards,
David.