a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen
wasoxygen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Partisan COVID

    A '10,000' means 1% of the state's population has tested positive of COVID since June 1. June 1 was chosen as it was around that time that countries worldwide that had been sucker-punched months before had the opportunity to apply proven preventative measures.

Probably the biggest demographic difference between red and blue is the rural/urban distinction. By June, bigger cities had already suffered the worst onslaught, and the infection was creeping into smaller towns and more rural areas.

    The results suggest a strong correlation between a state's political leanings and its ability to employ proven science to slow the spread of COVID.

Correlations have little explanatory power.

veen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I had not noticed it was since June 1st. Seems manipulative indeed... next time I'll be more careful when I share things that align with my pre-existing beliefs too much.

I'm not gonna delete my post. Apparently his website does that work for me. (cc b_b)

wasoxygen  ·  17 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The site is back online and there’s a chart based on March 1 that looks about the same. Nevada is the first blue state.

b_b  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

There's a saying that believing is seeing. It's so much easier to see through the garbage that doesn't confirm your worldview than the garbage that does. Even Gregor Mendel made shit up. He just happened to be basically correct. But being correct about a conclusion, and being sound on the data from which that conclusion is derived sometimes aren't closely linked.

The conclusion that conservative leaning areas in America could have done a better job with covid preparedness, given the disaster that was NY, NoLa, Detroit, etc, seems self-evident. But that doesn't mean that we should look for every opportunity to find another way to say, "Fuck Texas." I think part of the reason that the conservative areas got themselves into that mess was that they were too busy finding new ways to say, "Fuck NY and CA."

goobster  ·  17 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think the premise of beginning in June, was because by that point, every major country in the world had a robust COVID plan in place. So any increased infection rate would be due to poor plan implementation, not due to lack of knowledge on how to stem the spread.

The graph then goes on to demonstrate that the blue states were more effective at implementing (or continuing) their COVID plans (recognizing KB's comment that the coastal liberal big cities were the petri dishes where Lessons Were Learned early on, so didn't see infection spikes later), while the red states ignored best practices and demonstrated successful tactics around the world, and infections spiked.

Yes, it is a political piece. But I do believe they were transparent with their goals and motives, and demonstrated their hypothesis with well-sourced data.

kleinbl00  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It was punkin' around two or three days ago but then the lefty Twittersphere got bored with Trump Deathwatch and needed a new shiny-sparkly to distract themselves from the Amy Coney Barrett hearings. Thus they are loving it to death.

OftenBen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Here's an explanation.

Being a republican requires a person to sacrifice common sense and scientific literacy.

wasoxygen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Coming up with explanations is easy. Weighing evidence and forming sound conclusions is the hard part.

When coastal, high-density cities with lots of international travelers were infected first, how much weight do you put on the fact that they tend to vote Democratic to explain the spread?

OftenBen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Exhibit A to defend my initial point.


wasoxygen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

A reaction gif of a twenty-year-old semi-literate screed on tobacco legislation could just as well support the conclusion that politicians, not Republicans, are unscientific.

    The clumsy choice of wording (in a paragraph that conflicted with itself) cited statistics that were reasonably accurate at the time. Pence maintained that a third of smokers died of smoking-related illnesses, a figure that appeared to come from a 1987 study. Data demonstrating the percentage of smokers who contract lung cancer were mixed, but some indicated the number was roughly ten to 15 percent.


OftenBen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
wasoxygen  ·  18 days ago  ·  link  ·  

But Mike Pence wrote “smoking is not good for you” and “you should quit.”