3 ms·

For some, truthful attribution of causality matters. > The mortality burden of COVID-19 is not randomly distributed across age groups. Indeed, age appears to b

by nanis 5y ago

For some, truthful attribution of causality matters. > The mortality burden of COVID-19 is not randomly distributed across age groups. Indeed, age appears to be the “strongest predictor of mortality” from COVID-19, with one’s risk of death increasing exponentially with age. According to CDC figures, the oldest populations experience a rate of death 570 times higher than that of the youngest populations.

pupppet 5y ago
So if 0% of those 65+ in one state have their vaccination compared to 100% in another state, we can still reliably blame this on states with older populations?
- nanis 5y ago
  > So if 0% of those 65+ in one state have their vaccination compared to 100% in another state You can prove anything if the antecedent is false and I am not interested in bogus arguments. 1. Mortality from COVID19 (y) is strongly associated with age (z). 2. Voting Republican/Trump (x) is strongly associated with age (z). 3. Therefore, one cannot simply look at the association between x and y without controlling for z. This is what I spent decades trying to teach in Intro Stats and Econometrics. Ignoring a confounding variable because it is a convenient way to score a political point is in line with propaganda, not a quest for honest inquiry.
  - pupppet 5y ago
    You are arguing that a vaccinated 80 year old can be compared to an unvaccinated 80 year old. A 80 year old Republican is less likely to get the vaccination. It's pretty simple.
    - nanis 5y ago
      I am afraid I cannot continue to discuss in good faith because you are making up stuff I did not say. For the record, the whole point of the substack post is that the NYT article did not do anything close to comparing a vaccinated 80-year olds in a Blue states to unvaccinated 80-year olds in Red states. In fact, the article makes no attempt to control for age at all. No, the article assumes there is only one possible factor that might determine whether someone might die from COVID19 ... "Is that person one of us or one of them?" Alrighty then.

by nanis 5y ago

pupppet 5y ago

So if 0% of those 65+ in one state have their vaccination compared to 100% in another state, we can still reliably blame this on states with older populations?

nanis 5y ago
> So if 0% of those 65+ in one state have their vaccination compared to 100% in another state You can prove anything if the antecedent is false and I am not interested in bogus arguments. 1. Mortality from COVID19 (y) is strongly associated with age (z). 2. Voting Republican/Trump (x) is strongly associated with age (z). 3. Therefore, one cannot simply look at the association between x and y without controlling for z. This is what I spent decades trying to teach in Intro Stats and Econometrics. Ignoring a confounding variable because it is a convenient way to score a political point is in line with propaganda, not a quest for honest inquiry.
- pupppet 5y ago
  You are arguing that a vaccinated 80 year old can be compared to an unvaccinated 80 year old. A 80 year old Republican is less likely to get the vaccination. It's pretty simple.
  - nanis 5y ago
    I am afraid I cannot continue to discuss in good faith because you are making up stuff I did not say. For the record, the whole point of the substack post is that the NYT article did not do anything close to comparing a vaccinated 80-year olds in a Blue states to unvaccinated 80-year olds in Red states. In fact, the article makes no attempt to control for age at all. No, the article assumes there is only one possible factor that might determine whether someone might die from COVID19 ... "Is that person one of us or one of them?" Alrighty then.