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.
-
-
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 -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Comparativist
You have no idea if Myanmar had no imports. None. I cannot understand how you make such claims. You mean "Myanmar had no big outbreak therefore I'm assuming no imports" and then telling us the causal factor is number of imports. This is not an explanation! Anyway, that's all.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Trey, you are free to assume whatever. You explain low outbreak by *assuming* no imports (actually, an unknown number) and then defend it with "explain the low number then!". Plus you make superspreader exception! Till we have data to test with, this is epicycles.
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.