My sister-in-law's parents live in China. Their visa applications were rejected twice by Australian immigration to attend her wedding to my brother. It was only after an immigration lawyer was involved that their applications were granted. Initial rejections were not explained, yet Georgina Sturge's book may provide an explanation. A UK citizen with Nigerian descent had family remaining in Nigeria. Their visas were also rejected when she wanted to have her wedding. Upon review, it was determined that they were rejected because they came from a 'suspect' country. They were automatically considered 'risky' no matter the evidence they provided. Bad data, or faulty algorithms, was the problem.
Data, according to Sturge, "simply means information and, in the context of this book, mainly refers to numerical data." Data is important, but understanding its limitations—e.g., narrow sample size, poor modelling, biased selection, etc—and acting accordingly is more important. Governments and politicians are too ready to utilise bad data for ideological ends. This can have deleterious consequences. For example, Ivermectin was approved and prescribed to treat Covid-19 based on ostensibly promising clinical trial results. On closer inspection, however, many of the trials were "seriously flawed or likely fraudulent".
Sturge critiques the methodological underpinnings of various forms of data like surveys. However, she uncritically utilises survey data later in the book to undermine another disputed piece of data. This is a curious discrepancy. Moreover, I was disappointed by the rudimentary nature of the book. Sturge is a statistician for the House of Commons, and it felt like she restrained her intellectual prowess to ensure a larger audience. Despite these criticisms, I agree with Sturge's concluding remarks: "If we are going to be governed by numbers, let's not live in a data dictatorship. Let's recognise that we are the ones in control."