Share this page!

Nate Silver Profile picture
Twitter logo
26 Jul, 5 tweets, 2 min read
There were ~240,000 reported Delta cases in the US last week (and probably another ~2 million unreported Delta infections) but yeah let's keep those Delta-carrying Europeans out!
People from Slovenia are currently banned from entering the US whereas people from Malaysia are allowed, even though Malaysia currently has >10x as many cases per capita.
You could argue that it would be too much work for the US to constantly update the list of countries based on current conditions except the State Department already does *exactly that* for Americans traveling *to* those countries.

travel.state.gov/content/travel…
The WH is taking advantage of media shortcomings by citing the Delta variant and giving this quasi-scientific BS rationle. It makes no scientific sense given there's ~no correlation between which counties are banned and how much COVID spread they have.

usatoday.com/story/travel/2…
If you read what public health experts think about the US entry policy, they mostly think it's crazy, but they tend to downplay criticism, maybe because they're liberals w/colleagues in the Biden Administration. Meanwhile political reporters don't want to "question the science".

• • •

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

Keep Current with Nate Silver

Nate Silver 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 @NateSilver538

Nate Silver Profile picture
19 Jul
I think you'll see some places reimpose mask mandates and I think you'll see some fierce debates about school reopenings, but I'd be somewhat surprised if you see many COVID-related restrictions return in the US beyond that. (No idea about other countries.)
For one thing, it's not clear who the constituency for these restrictions would be. Vaccinated people are pretty safe and don't necessarily *need* them while unvaccinated people largely won't *want* them and may not abide by them.
For another, we're dealing with far different circumstances than earlier phases of the pandemic & I don't expect nearly as much consensus among public health experts on the desirability of restrictions. Even "Zero COVID" folks are now somewhat resigned.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/… Image
Read 4 tweets
Nate Silver Profile picture
2 Jul
This article is confusing. Experts make a great case that J&J recipients should get a booster.

But then it's said a new study—so far described only in a J&J press release!—addressed "some of those concerns". Weak basis for concluding no booster needed.

nytimes.com/2021/07/01/hea… ImageImage
Another example of the logic I find confusing.

Sure, one-shot J&J may provide decent protection against Delta and better-than-decent against severe illness from Delta. But why wouldn't you want the VERY good protection you might get from an mRNA booster?

marketwatch.com/story/worries-… Image
One consistent lesson from COVID is you should trust the experts' evidence (e.g. studies that show mRNA boosters really boost protection in people who got the AZ vaccine) more than their proscriptive advice (e.g. "I wouldn't get a booster) when the two are in conflict.
Read 4 tweets
Nate Silver Profile picture
29 Jun
Kinda seems like Yang's endorsement of Garcia as his #2 mattered here. She gains a lot of ground and overtakes Wiley when Yang is eliminated.

Note that these results are preliminary; does not include absentee ballots. ImageImage
This is another key observation. About 25% of ballots were exhausted. Always fill out all your choices when participating in a ranked-choice election.
Another question: Given that Garcia barely edged out Wiley in the penultimate round before nearly catching Adams, does that mean Wiley has a path *too* once absentees are added?

My guess is Wiley has a path, but it's pretty unlikely one (see next tweet).

Read 6 tweets
Nate Silver Profile picture
13 Jun
So the thesis here is that Walensky follows the medical science, but actually this is bad and the CDC should tell weird little lies to people?

nytimes.com/2021/06/10/hea…
I guess you can steel-man this by saying "behavioral science is science too!". I strongly agree.

But i) the public health community's instincts for behavioral science have been poor;
ii) Behavioral science would suggest an agency being less honest with people has consequences.
If you want to say "follow the *behavioral* science, *too*!", that's great!

But some of the people cited in this article have been quite hostile to behavioral scientists (sociologists, economists, political scientists, etc.) when they've tried to contribute their own expertise.
Read 4 tweets
Nate Silver Profile picture
28 May
There are a few mechanisms here:

1) Parties usually course-correct after defeats and the GOP is doing the very opposite. It's not clear how well empirical precedents about mean-reversion during the midterms holds up under these conditions.
2) Swing voters tend to elect the out-party in midterms to create a balance of power. If they're convinced that the GOP will not wield its power responsibly or will even use control of Congress to permanently seize power, that calculation changes.
3) Even if swing voters don't care, Democratic base voters are likely to be very motivated by the claim that Democrats must keep control of Congress to prevent the presidency from being stolen in 2024. This may reduce the typical "enthusiasm gap" in midterm voting.
Read 4 tweets
Nate Silver Profile picture
25 May
Yeah, the claim that ranked choice voting is the reason that (some) pollsters are sitting out the NYC race strikes me as total bullshit, more or less. Rather, it's likely a fairly hard race to poll and they're afraid of being wrong. But that has very little to do with RCV.
There's also been quite a bit of polling in the NYC mayor's race, just not much of it from the traditional "gold standard" firms. The same was true in the Georgia Senate runoffs and guess what happened? The polling did very, very well there.
If pollsters want to sit out high-profile races that's their prerogative. It may align with their incentives. Pollsters get a ton of crap when they're "wrong" but little credit when they're "right" and that's a deterrent to doing more polling.

Don't give me this RCV BS though.
Read 5 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @NateSilver538 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @NateSilver538!

Read all threads by @NateSilver538

:(