Twice as likely to test positive if tested, but also nearly three times less to get tested. The way Axios presents these data is misleading. The meaning is not obvious; many COVID cases were never tested/confirmed, so I wouldn’t infer mask wearers *more* likely to get COVID.
This piece needs to be fixed, the text doesn’t match the chart.
Of course there’s all sorts of other confounds. Maybe one reason people wore masks regularly outside the home is they had a higher baseline level of COVID exposure. Mask wearers also may have been more careful in general. You can’t really infer from observations like this.
Also, mask wearers getting tested 3x as often likely means they got a lot more tests when not symptomatic, so a lower positivity rate is to be expected even with equal risk of getting COVID. etc.
People seem still confused by this. Contrary to headline, Axios data show people who say they always wore masks were *more* likely to have gotten a positive COVID test result than those who never did, and much more likely to get tested. These facts are of course related. But...
... this doesn’t tell us anything about the underlying rate of COVID cases. Test positivity among those tested doesn’t tell us much because the tests are not administered at random and conscientious people are more likely to get tested when asymptomatic.
People whose reported mask behavior differs also differs in other ways. They may be at more risk of exposure, or they may be broadly more conscientious. Basically it’s a data point that says nothing either way, but the story draws a strong inference anyway.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The media handled this poorly but I think the even worse performance is in scientific and health policy institutions, which showed an even more stifling ideological monoculture than the press did.
You could see this in, for example, the ACIP proposal not to recommend an age-based approach to vaccine phasing, even though it would save more lives, because of “equity” concerns. Whatever woke nonsense is ongoing in press is much farther along in the health bureaucracy.
And then you had the bullshit about how, because ACIP hadn’t finalized the recommendation, it was improper to discuss it or something. Total “shut up, they explained” nonsense.
The thing I don’t get about bottle service — besides the astronomical price — is, if I’m at a fancy establishment, having very expensive drinks, shouldn’t I at least be getting them in the form of properly made martinis or manhattans or whatever?
As an aside, one reason Democrats are in such miserable shape in Ohio is that Ohio Republicans, unlike Republicans in certain other states, actually try hard to be popular with a clear majority of the electorate.
Okay it seems that Oregon, Maryland, Arkansas and New York are doing variations on the Ohio thing.
It damages the NYT’s reputation to have a key reporter on the most important story of the year say a valid news angle shouldn’t be discussed because it has “racist roots.” Aren’t they supposed to be in the news business?
But basically reporters at the NYT are allowed do whatever they want on social media, however damaging to the paper’s reputation, so long as they have the right politics.
The core issue here is that management at the NYT is cowardly. They are afraid of their young, noisy, leftist reporters. So they don't manage, and insubordination is rampant. And it's very damaging to the product.
30% of the “incidents” with race data in this sample (“incidents” defined to include accusing the CCP of covering up a lab leak) are Donald Trump personally.
The political narratives being pushed here are that white supremacy is at the root of every social ill, and that fighting hate incidents does not conflict with de-policing proposals.