3 ms·
Hm, I found David Leonhardt's summary of that article to be fairly sound – it even opens with "School closures have been implemented internationally with insuff
by lelandfe 5y ago
Hm, I found David Leonhardt's summary of that article to be fairly sound – it even opens with "School closures have been implemented internationally with insufficient evidence for their role in minimising covid-19 transmission."
"[A]ccumulating evidence shows that teachers and school staff are not at higher risk of hospital admission or death from covid-19 compared with other workers" quote seems most pertinent. Other quotes that certainly back the paraphrase include "teacher absence decreased in tier 3 regions during the November lockdown despite schools remaining open" and "Teacher absence because of confirmed covid-19 in England was similar in primary and secondary schools in the autumn term."
Finally, the "Transmission" section explicitly casts doubt on studies that did show a reduction in transmission. Overall, "skeptical," as the linked NYT article states, seems dead on.
Were there other sources from the article that you took issue with?
- superfrank 5y agoI actually agree with the summary you provided, but I think the article it self way over steps that and I don't think their sources back up a lot of the claims they make inside the article. The one I quoted above is the most obvious, but the other two things I take issue with are: 1. They seem to attribute the rising gun violence to covid, but when you look at the data they provided on school shootings, it's been rising since 2015. The number we're at now just looks like a continuation of that trend. 2. The fact about a third of their sources are just other NYT articles written by their colleagues. Chasing down the true source behind some of their claims is near impossible since it's often multiple levels of people interpreting the data.