Except for places with 100% testing, we only estimate/trace initial imports if there is further noticeable spread. If not, we dont even know of them. It’s a version of selecting on the dependent variable or survivorship bias. Basic stuff for causal analysis. So yes, epicycles.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Comparativist
It doesn't explain at all because you have no numbers that are at all independent of the thing you are trying to explain, and thus a version of selecting on the dependent variable and survivorship bias. It's so obvious that I'm puzzled.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Comparativist
How do you know anything about the number of imports in places without outbreaks?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @Comparativist
(It may be related or not. The question is: how do you know about the timing of imports in places without outbreaks or any visible signs of a huge epidemic?)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Comparativist
No, you are telling yourself we have a very good sense of imports. We don't Only known imports, and almost only in places with major outbreaks. 100 percent testing in Hong Kong started in April, well after almost complete visitor ban, doesn't explain previous trajectory.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
If we had 100 percent testing somewhere in January, February with open travel, sure.Otherwise, selecting on dependent variable here. We have no idea if a place got a lot of imports but no outbreak. Not sure how else I can phrase this.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1258668597909639168 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.