Vaccine

watfly said:
Again your only looking at one factor, there are economic and education factors. The great irony is you want to adjust for population density because it favors blue states.
Click to expand...
You got it. Adjusting for pop density without adjusting for obesity would be a way to favor blue states. Just don’t count me as advocating that position.

My gut is you need to adjust for all four. Or restrict your analysis to more comparable places. The correlation between politics and population density is just too strong. You can do good work, thinking you are looking at one, and it turns out you’re really seeing the other.
 
dad4 said:
If you want to make group A look better than group B, all you need to do is correct for the factors which put group A at a disdvantage.

So, if you want to make blue state policies look good, you correct for population density and timing of first wave.

If you want to make red state policies look good, you correct for obesity rates and population age.

Actual researchers won’t be fooled. But it works if your goal is to have a nice headline in NYT or WSJ.
Click to expand...
Your claims don't match the results in terms of Covid.

The study rated Montana as the 10th worst for Covid results while Montana has the 25th worst deaths per capita. The study rated South Dakota 6 worst for Covid results while it has the 22 worst deaths per capita. How does that favor Red States? It doesn't, its the exact opposite of what your claiming. As it turns out of the top 10 overall, 5 were rated worse in the study than there rating for per capita deaths. So 5 were rated better, including Maine, a blue state. So it seems even handed treatment.

While I don't doubt there may be bias in the study, there is inherent bias in every study. Your claims don't add up.
 
watfly said:
Again your only looking at one factor, there are economic and education factors. The great irony is you want to adjust for population density because it favors blue states.
Click to expand...

It appears that you agree that the factors can be adjusted to yield the desired result.
 
watfly said:
Your claims don't match the results in terms of Covid.

The study rated Montana as the 10th worst for Covid results while Montana has the 25th worst deaths per capita. The study rated South Dakota 6 worst for Covid results while it has the 22 worst deaths per capita. How does that favor Red States? It doesn't, its the exact opposite of what your claiming. As it turns out of the top 10 overall, 5 were rated worse in the study than there rating for per capita deaths. So 5 were rated better, including Maine, a blue state. So it seems even handed treatment.

While I don't doubt there may be bias in the study, there is inherent bias in every study. Your claims don't add up.
Click to expand...

In order to overcome the "inherent bias in every study", most economic and sociological studies of this type are submitted for peer review. Political studies don't bother with that effort.
 
espola said:
It appears that you agree that the factors can be adjusted to yield the desired result.
Click to expand...
Yep, bigger no shit. But that doesn't mean it happened in this case. There is no evidence from the results that the methodology for ranking Covid factors inherently benefitted red states. In fact, it appears that it may have worked against low density red states.
 
watfly said:
Yep, bigger no shit. But that doesn't mean it happened in this case. There is no evidence from the results that the methodology for ranking Covid factors inherently benefitted red states. In fact, it appears that it may have worked against low density red states.
Click to expand...
I am sure the authors are pleased that their results are being favored by their intended audience.
 
dad4 said:
Look at the list of states.

In what way are Vermont, Maine, Montana, and Idaho different from New York, New Jersey, DC, Los Angeles and Chicago?

You've definitely proven that respiratory disease spreads better when you are nearer to other people.

Congratulations.
Click to expand...

It's states not cities, like FL and TX.
 
Zuckerberg millions won't be part of mid-term elections, says it was a 'one-time' thing
A rep for Zuckerberg said the 2020 funds were 'a one-time donation'
 
espola said:
It would take someone trained and skilled in the field to review their methods properly. The disclaimer on the first page more or less declares that this is just an unreviewed "working paper" being passed around for comments. From the results found in simple internet searches, it appears that it has become a favorite among certain political circles, which I must assume was the authors' intent.
Click to expand...
There are think tanks running test groups, there are experts in data manipulation, there are scientists paid to skew research, there are media outlets looking for brand loyalty and more clicks etc etc. Navigating through that kind of gauntlet isn’t for the impressionable and weak minded. Speaking of, the internet and social media is packed with experts on a variety of subjects that decide what they want to believe despite what actual professionals and real life experts say. What a world we live in!
 
espola said:
It would take someone trained and skilled in the field to review their methods properly. The disclaimer on the first page more or less declares that this is just an unreviewed "working paper" being passed around for comments. From the results found in simple internet searches, it appears that it has become a favorite among certain political circles, which I must assume was the authors' intent.
Click to expand...
But it just takes one fool to believe the hype and spread it to likeminded fools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top