6 ms·
The title of the reason article is: The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science And a quote from the article: For thes
by setr 5y ago
The title of the reason article is: The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science
And a quote from the article: For these and other reasons, Zweig argues that the study ought to be ignored entirely: Masking in schools may or may not be a good idea, but this study doesn't help answer the question. Any public official—including and especially Walensky—who purports to follow the science should toss this one in the trash.
They weren’t simply technically correct — they were being quite cautious about clarifying that only this study is under question.
> Given that Reason is a political rag, and I doubt very much their intent was to further scientific discussion on the issue
That’s exactly the kind of thing “fact checkers” shouldn’t be factoring in. What Reason says elsewhere should have little to no bearing on what they say here, beyond a question of less or more scrutiny.
This isn’t an issue so much of malice, but the inherent political bias provided by these self-declared independent arbiters of truth. It’s a nonsensical setup.
- Bud 5y agoOne problem I see right off the bat is: how does the author know that this is "the study" that convinced the CDC? He doesn't. That's made-up BS. The CDC is a large scientific organization that has built up a lot of credibility over decades. I trust it far more than any single off-the-cuff writer like this guy. And unless there is very strong evidence, I don't accept the claim at face value that CDC acted, or generally acts, on the basis of a single study.
- lghh 5y agoDid you read it or the linked The Atlantic article? CDC representatives site the 3.5x number over and over again as the justification. The number came from this study. A led to B led to C.
- VikingCoder 5y agoIf you and I are experts, and I gave you a hundred pieces of evidence, and you were already convinced by the 20th piece of evidence, and they're all complicated and hard to understand, and then I gave you one more piece of evidence that had a really easy to understand statistic you could easily share with lay people, how would you communicate with the public? Would you purposefully avoid sharing the really easy to understand statistic? Would someone be correct that that one piece of evidence was "what convinced you?" You and I don't know how heavily this study weighed in their deliberations, and we especially don't know it to a degree of certainty to say "THE STUDY THAT CONVINCED THE CDC."
- josephcsible 5y agoIf the CDC intentionally chose to lie to the public about their reason for a decision, that's really really bad.
- lghh 5y agoI don't see any evidence that they intentionally chose to lie. Do you?
- josephcsible 5y agoI suppose I could have worded that more clearly. I wasn't saying they did in real life. I was continuing a hypothetical started in the comment I replied to, and in the hypothetical they obviously did.
- VikingCoder 5y agoIf josephcsible intentionally chose to lie about running a dog fighting club, that's really really bad. I have as much evidence for my bad faith statement as you do for yours.
- josephcsible 5y agoI'm not saying that the CDC actually did lie in this case. I'm continuing the hypothetical from your previous comment, where you said that the CDC would be convinced by evidence piece #20, but then tell the public that they were convinced by evidence piece #21.
- VikingCoder 5y agoThey did not "then tell the public" that "the one that convinced them" was this one study. In communicating with the public, they happened to cite #21, because explaining all 21 would take too long and be confusing for you, and be distracting. Refuting the specific evidence in #21 does not directly refute the other 20, and does not make the conclusion "Junk Science" as the headline apparently unintentionally implied. And the headline had no business saying "The study," when they have no idea how many studies the CDC internally considered.
- Bud 5y agoI don't care what CDC reps cited in a single presser. Did The Atlantic conclusively report that that was the only data evaluated by CDC? No, of course not. Does The Atlantic even know? I doubt it.
- VikingCoder 5y agoThey were absolutely not being "quite cautious." Quite cautious would have been, "A Study That the CDC Used," which connotes that the evidence was considered. Rather than "The Study That Convinced the CDC," which connotes that without this evidence, the CDC would have been convinced NOT to have mask mandates. They had a click bait title, and Facebook temporarily pumped the brakes on spreading the story.
- dfxm12 5y agoThat’s exactly the kind of thing “fact checkers” shouldn’t be factoring in. What Reason says elsewhere should have little to no bearing on what they say here, beyond a question of less or more scrutiny. Maybe this all depends on the scope of what Meta is trying to do. Think of a blog dedicated to lies about the shape of the Earth. Let's say most of their content wouldn't pass muster, but they post one truthful article a week about which team won that week's football games, just to get published on other platforms. Now, people can click to honestly see who won the game, but all over the page are headlines full of lies that link to stories that would otherwise not be allowed on other platforms. Is this other content on the page included in teh fact check? I don't think Meta is open about that...