Here's today's "worst-week" graph showing each state's highest 7-day per capita increase in confirmed case count since Memorial Day, color coded by the policy that led to that growth rate (one month prior to the end of the highest growth week).
Since yesterday, red-state West Virginia has leapfrogged blue-state Washington because it had a higher rate for the 7-day period ending today than Washington had during its worst week. WV moved to the right & WA was displaced to the left, continuing the self-sorting process.
Likewise, red Montana leapt over blue Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Mexico. Yesterday I listed 11 states (all red) that have experienced their worst 7-day growth the last week. Today there are 12, with the addition of Utah.
This shows current status of each state, colored by policy that existed one month ago today. It's misleading bc the 3 best states (VT, ME, and NH) got their growth rate down to low level before they adopted the less restrictive red policy that colors their respective bars.
VT, ME, & NH were able to successfully re-open *because* of the blue restrictions. Likewise, TN is colored blue but had reached a very high infection level during the time it had a red policy. It has recovered some since it turned blue, but not a lot.
Here's a kind of hybrid graph. It shows the current rates but with a scheme that is colored according to the policy that got each state to its historic worst level since the post-Memorial-Day surge.
The only colors that change are the best three states (VT, ME, and NH) which stayed low enough to turn red because of their strict blue policy, and TN, which adopted a blue policy after peaking out at a high level because of a lax red policy.
Needless to say North Dakota is rapidly turning into the next COVID-19 disaster area, probably boosted by the Sturgis superspreader event combined with bad policy & unhealthy behavior including lack of social distancing & poor mask hygiene.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Boslough @boslough.bsky.social

Mark Boslough @boslough.bsky.social Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MarkBoslough

Mar 28, 2022
Today I'm going to talk about Example #8 in Allen West's formal "Explanation of Changes in Corrected Paper" (the controversial Bunch et al Sodom & Gomorrah was a comet airburst paper). The beginning of the discussion is here:
Here's the link to West's "Explanation" which invokes the word "cosmetic" 12 times. Perhaps the Comet Research Group needs to change the name of its blog to "Cosmetic Tusk" since it seems to focus on cosmetic appearances at the expense of science.
"For cosmetic reasons in Fig. 15b, we used a cloning tool to remove the partially visible N arrow and replaced it with a NE arrow."

In the published version the NE arrow pointed to the left of north and that would have been obvious if the N arrow hadn't been photoshopped out.
Read 17 tweets
Mar 28, 2022
I'm starting a new thread to discuss the Comet Research Group's explanation of their corrections to the Bunch et al (2021) Sodom & Gomorrah airburst paper, which used inappropriately modified (photoshopped) field photos. The first thread starts here:
"Example #3. The annotated Figure 44c of the skeleton (left panel below) was provided by official photographers of the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project (TeHEP). It is listed below as the 'uncropped original,' because an unannotated original is not available."
Why were the authors of Bunch et al (2021) unable to get an original copy of this image, given that one of the coauthors is Director of Scientific Analysis and Field Supervisor at the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project (TeHEP), when I was able to get a copy?
Read 13 tweets
Mar 27, 2022
The Comet Research Group has just released, through its Cosmic Tusk blog, an extended explanation for the manipulated images in the Bunch et al (2021) Sodom paper. I would like to give all my science friends a chance to analyze & comment on it here. cosmictusk.com/wp-content/upl…
According to the CRG's blogger & spokesman, "In an opaque request, elements of the mob petitioned Science Reports, claiming the photographs in the publication were fraudulent. The impact scientists immediately responded to the nuisance claim carefully and appropriately."
The request wasn't made by a "mob". It was made by 2021 Maddox Prize winning image forensics expert and scientific integrity advocate Elisabeth Bik, @microbiomdigest, in PubPeer. It was a series of requests, starting in September (the week after the paper was published).
Read 13 tweets
Feb 17, 2022
This weekend marks 5 months since publication of a deeply flawed paper claiming that the biblical city of Sodom was destroyed by a Tunguska sized airburst. It's under consideration for retraction due to inappropriate image tampering. Here's a chronology.
nature.com/articles/s4159…
Sept. 20, 2021:
Bunch et al (2021) was published by @SciReports. It was immediately met by harsh criticism from archaeologists, airburst experts, radiocarbon dating experts & other scientists.


Sept. 29, 2021:
Image forensics expert & scientific integrity advocate E. Bik (@microbiomdigest) discovered evidence for photoshopping (cloning) of one of the 18 digital photographs of the excavation. She immediately published her finding in PubPeer.
Read 20 tweets
Oct 30, 2021
Whenever I look at Bunch et al #Sodom #airburst paper I find more problems. I already documented the authors’ profound misunderstanding of airbursts (see link). Now I see that they get much of their information about #Tunguska from creationist literature.
In their subsection entitled “Comparison to Tunguska cosmic airburst” they make several false assertions. In re-reading it today, another claim jumped out at me: “The airburst generated a pressure wave that toppled or snapped >80 million trees, some up to 1-m in diameter..” Image
I wasn’t aware that there were any trees a meter in diameter that had been toppled. I didn’t see any meter-wide trees when I visited explored the Siberian taiga in the blast zone 13 years ago. None of the surviving trees we cored were that big.
Read 13 tweets
Oct 7, 2021
Here's an aerial photograph of the trees there were blown over by the Tunguska blast. It was taken about 30 years after the 1908 event & was used with other data by Giuseppe Longo to create a map of direction of fallen trees. You can see there is some variation in alignment. Image
In a strong blast wave, there is turbulence & chaotic flow. Terrain influences the direction & intensity too. Not everything that blows down is parallel. It looks to my eye as if, even in this small area, the tree alignment varies by up to 10°. Image
Researchers can survey a blast zone like Tunguska to create a map of debris directing to infer wind vectors by statistically averaging local variation. Longo did that for his Tunguska map. But not everything lines up perfectly because the real world is noisy. Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(