November 22, 2020
The Blizzard of Bogus Journalism on Covid
Here are a few snippets:
Take a look at Supermarkets are the most common place to catch Covid, new data reveals. It’s a story on a "study†assembled by Public Health England (PHE) from the NHS Test and Trace App. Here is the conclusion. In the six days of November studied, "of those who tested positive, it was found that 18.3 per cent had visited a supermarket.â€
Now, if the alarm bells don’t go off with that one, you didn’t pay
attention to 7th grade science. If the app had also included showering,
eating, and breathing, it might have found a 100% correlation. Yes, the
people who tested positive probably did shop, as do most people. That
doesn’t mean that shopping gives you Covid and it certainly doesn’t
mean that shopping kills you.
The New York Times pulled a mighty fast one with this piece: "States That Imposed Few Restrictions Now Have the Worst Outbreaks.†This would be huge news if true because it would imply not only that lockdowns save lives (which no serious study has thus far been able to document) but also that granting people basic freedoms are the reason for bad health outcomes, an astonishing claim on its own.
The piece, put together by two graphic artists and seemingly very science-like, speaks of "outbreaks,†which vaguely sounds terrible: packed with mortality. It’s odd because anyone can look at the dataand see that New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut lead the way with deaths per million, mostly owing to the fatalities in long-term care facilities. These were the states that locked down the hardest and longest. Indeed they are locking down again! Deaths per million in states like South Dakota are still low on the list.
How in the world can the NYT claim that states that did not lock down have the worst outbreaks? The claim hinges entirely on a trivial discovery. Some clever someone discovered that if you reflow data by cases per million instead of deaths per million, you get an opposite result. The reasons: 1) when the Northeast experienced the height of the pandemic, there was very little testing going on, so the "outbreak†was not documented even as deaths grew and grew, 2) by the time the virus reached the Midwest, tests were widely available, 3) the testing mania grew and grew to the point that the non-vulnerable are being tested like crazy, generating high positives in small-population areas.
By focusing on the word "outbreak,†the Times can cleverly obscure the difference between a positive PCR result (including many false positive and perhaps half or more asymptomatic cases) and a severe outcome from catching the virus. In other words, the Times has documented an "outbreak†of mostly non-sick people in low-population areas.
Read the whole piece; it is well worth it.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:04 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: sammy mor at January 26, 2021 08:19 AM (CvgdE)
37 queries taking 0.3307 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.