4 ms·
A̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶g̶e̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶n̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶d̶e̶m̶o̶g̶
by finite_jest 5y ago
A̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶g̶e̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶n̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶d̶e̶m̶o̶g̶r̶a̶p̶h̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶c̶e̶.̶
Sorry, I was wrong about that, see
timmytokyo's comment below.
- timmytokyo 5y agoFrom the article: "The trend was robust, even when controlling for age, which is the primary demographic risk of COVID-19 mortality."
- finite_jest 5y agoI stand corrected then. However, there is no "even" about it. They should control for age (as they purportedly did), or the results are probably meaningless. I think it is deceptive that they emphasize the numbers which don't account for that, and I can't find the numbers they get after controlling for age.