Thread by @Loretta_Torrago

No, @TracyBethHoeg, the article you point to does not claim delta is not "resulting in increased rates of in-school transmission”. In fact, it says the opposite. 🧵

Speaking of the 12 presumed cases of in-school transmission for the summer, the article offers this: "By way of comparison, the district reported 2 cases of apparant transmission during the regular school year."
latimes.com/california/sto…

In fact, the article very explicitly implicates Delta in the rise of infections.

Regarding infections generally, the article reports 20 infections for the first week, increasing to 59 the final week for a total of 174 infections over the 5 weeks summer period.

In terms of rates, the article states that over the summer, general infection rates went from 1 in 1,000 to 6 in 1,000.

What's more, the article makes clear the involvement of mitigation in the somewhat surprising containment of Delta.

Yet despite the article, despite the preponderance of evidence pointing to the importance of mitigation, when @TracyBethHoeg is confronted in the replies about the role of mitigation in the summer program's control of Delta she says, "just can't say what amount if any they made"

A line which itself is almost straight out of "Merchants of Doubt" because the strategy of the denier is not to offer evidence but to raise doubt as if you "just can't say" whether mitigation makes a difference.

But of course, we can say, there's endless evidence mitigation makes a difference yet here @KrugAlli and @tracyhoeg go on as if none of it makes a difference because, why not just ignore everything else and make you case based on an outlier, Denmark?

Which Denmark, by the way, currently has five times as many cases as Germany and is the leader in cases amongst its neighbors. But sure, that's the way to go.