sense and non census-ivity

[bigbadmax]

The U.K Census takes place this sunday.
There's a £1000.00 fine for non return.
But is it worth anything or is it "lies, damn lies and statistics"?

[Hephaestion]

1) Supposedly will be the last census to be taken.

2) There are so many claims of beneficial outcome in the collected data and yet at the same time there is also claim that the data will not be shared with anyone nor released for 100years - "Trust us"

3) "The first census was taken in 18xx". Hello! What about the Domesday book in Norman times? Taxation is always a priority.

4) The info submitted is largely subjective and mostly taken on trust. In the last Census, the claimed threshold for state acceptance of a religion was reputedly passed by those declaring to being "Jedi". There has been no overt declaration or acceptance of this - maybe it's the secrecy thing kicking in?

6) Perhaps there is admission in all of this that there are so many alternative sources of dependable statistical information that the entire exercise is a waste of time and money.

[softfruit]

The apparent contradiction in 2) comes from that the individual data won't be published for 100 years, but the aggregate data is used much sooner - allocating funding for public services etc, also that aggregate data lets you judge how well the samples used in other research reflects the wider population. Those "alternative sources of statistical information" need something to measure up against for checking!

[Hephaestion]

Apparently "the last census to be taken in this way". This not clarified, perhaps meaning on paper.

From a reliable source, the data is referenced back to the specific origin by code but then 'disaggregated' for immediate use e.g. given (free) to big names to help them plan their next supermarket or e.g stock their shelves with something appropriate. Of course there will be no helping taxation mechanisms in any way

The data will not be reaggragated and refereced back to the person of origin until 100 years have elapsed therefore honouring the claim of 'confidentiality' and 'secrecy'.

The claim is also made that the computerised methods of data collection (whether from paper or online) will be able to detect the use false names like Donlad Duck and Mickey Mouse. That's good but what about Richard Head, Mike Hunt, Charlie Haplin, Stan Lee Laurel and Olivia Hardy. How much effort will be expended to determine whether Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse are real and correctly named people? It is of course quite legal to assume a name / pseudonym at any time although documantation may become a problem eventually.

Hmm!

If you are No.2 then who is No.1?
You are No.6
I am not a number, I am a free man!