Here's an example highlighting excellent work by the CDC. I still find the suggestion baffling that the CDC scientists would balk at providing age-distributions, or consider that meddling. Cherry-picking data, yes. Age-distributions aren't cherry-picking. https://twitter.com/SurelyVoter/status/1311020413284089856 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @zeynep
I’m having trouble understanding your objection. Presumably the CDC has all the age-distribution data. It certainly should. The White House seemed to want a particular chart for PR purposes. And particular language. All political: minimize Covid to help Trump’s reelection.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JamesGleick @zeynep
If CDC scientists—in preparing their guidance for reopening schools—ignored their age-distribution data and lumped all 0- to 25-year-olds together, that would be criminally stupid. I don’t see any reason to think they did that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesGleick
The article makes the astonishing claim that 0-25 is "normal" and that somehow asking for a age breakdown is meddling, or it was resisted? Why? Article also cited a study that was misreported (and later corrected) as if it were correct. Dunno, really. Reporters need to update.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @JamesGleick
(And of course CDC provides age breakdowns and has had excellent reports. I don't understand what the reporters are claiming, it makes very little sense. The print version has many errors remaining; they've been silently updating the online one but still not coherent).
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Surely you do understand what the reporters are claiming. The White House made it clear to the CDC that information suggesting Covid-19 is a serious problem was to be suppressed and public reports were to be arranged so as to encourage people to go about their “normal” lives.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @JamesGleick
The particulars of the story are not that, though, in this case. They list a bunch of routine stuff and/or cite studies that were (very visibly) corrected and/or make claims that are either not coherent or correct. The reporters need to talk to science reporters and fix & update.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
The paragraph that most bothered you seems pretty trivial. CDC is circulating some bar chart for some purpose. It’s not important. What’s important is that the political people want a chart with a specific message. That shouldn’t be happening. The CDC isn’t part of the campaign.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @JamesGleick
That’s just the opening paragraph. The rest of the piece also doesn’t make sense in most of its claims. One likely interpretation is that the reporters had little understanding of the science? Their claims about the CDC makes little sense. It’s baffling. You tell me.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
people at the White House are trying to correct that? I don’t think that’s what you think.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don’t think so—hah—but till the reporters clarify, I can’t make sense of what they’re specifically saying in this piece.
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.