That article (i.e. the author) seems to have a weird understanding of mathematics:
> "Note that there are two ways to calculate increases. We can measure an increase in absolute terms, e.g., a rise from 5% to 15% of teens with a diagnosis is a ten percentage-point increase, or we can report it in relative terms, e.g., a rise from 5% to 15% is a 300% increase, relative to the anchor point"
Uhm… maybe in an "alternative mathematics" universe? Where I learned math, an increase from 100% of the anchor value to 300% of the anchor value is not a relative increase of 300% but of 300%-100%=200%.
In contrast, A "300% increase, relative to the anchor point" would be adding 300% of the anchor value to the 100% of it that it already has, i.e. resulting in an end value of 400% of the anchor value. So in the case presented by the article quote, to come back to the absolute terms, it would be a rise from 5% to 20%, not to 15%.
> "Note that there are two ways to calculate increases. We can measure an increase in absolute terms, e.g., a rise from 5% to 15% of teens with a diagnosis is a ten percentage-point increase, or we can report it in relative terms, e.g., a rise from 5% to 15% is a 300% increase, relative to the anchor point"
Uhm… maybe in an "alternative mathematics" universe? Where I learned math, an increase from 100% of the anchor value to 300% of the anchor value is not a relative increase of 300% but of 300%-100%=200%.
In contrast, A "300% increase, relative to the anchor point" would be adding 300% of the anchor value to the 100% of it that it already has, i.e. resulting in an end value of 400% of the anchor value. So in the case presented by the article quote, to come back to the absolute terms, it would be a rise from 5% to 20%, not to 15%.