> Half of the people I know are working from home and stocked up on 1-2 months of food at the outset of this.
Seriously? Your personal network is evidence the this study is useless because of sampling bias?
Everyone I know voted for Hilary Clinton and yet here we are.
> People who are shopping in stores are absolutely a very biased sample.
People who have jobs that allow them to work from home are a very biased sample. How many grocery stockers are there in NYC compared to let’s say, software developers? I suspect you haven’t a clue, since by your own admission you don’t know a single person who needs to leave their home to work. So maybe your mental model if who makes up the population is skewed.
Sure, I agree with you, excluding them is biased as well. A more appropriate phrase to be used to describe "people who have jobs that allow them to work from home" is "a small minority".
And let's be real, biasing your sample by not including a small minority doesn't affect the outcome of a study nearly as much as doing the opposite and sampling mostly from that small minority. Does it make the results less accurate? Yes. Does it make the results nearly as inaccurate as it would be if they excluded most of people but that minority? Not at all.
Seriously? Your personal network is evidence the this study is useless because of sampling bias?
Everyone I know voted for Hilary Clinton and yet here we are.
> People who are shopping in stores are absolutely a very biased sample.
People who have jobs that allow them to work from home are a very biased sample. How many grocery stockers are there in NYC compared to let’s say, software developers? I suspect you haven’t a clue, since by your own admission you don’t know a single person who needs to leave their home to work. So maybe your mental model if who makes up the population is skewed.