BBC Radio 4 has a flagship news and current affairs programme every weekday morning called "Today". Following one interviewer's comment, the presenter commented "The best statistic I have heard for a long time". He then paused and added words to the effect that the statistic was not good news, but had been presented in a clear way so that the meaning was easy to understand. It strikes me that those of us who work with mathematical models could learn from this example.
The interview had been about the social deprivation of parts of the east of London, and the comment was made: "for every tube stop on the Jubilee line [on London Underground] going east, from Westminster to Canning Town, life expectancy decreases by one year". It is not good news. But the information is conveyed in a way that is clear, simple and easy to assimilate. It is not cause and effect. Underground stations do not affect life expectancy. But one has a clear sense that the further you travel along the line, the more social deprivation, leading to lowered life expectancy, you will encounter. And the figure of "one year" is probably a rounded version of the data ... but for the purposes of this graphical illustration, it is precise enough. Someone has found a way to present information, which is of use to planners, in a way that is easy to take in. So we can learn from the example.
But, as usual, the story above is only part of the story. The statistic has been created by using limited information and extending it. The data which had been used said that the life expectancy for residents near Westminster station was seven years more than that for people living near Canning Town. They are eight stations apart. Nobody has written abot the life expectancy at those intermediate stations. All that has been done is to draw a straight line between the two extremes and assume linearity. Even though the method is not rigorous, it is still graphic. How can we learn to strike a balance between rigour and clarity?