I guess, but it’s a heterogeneous dataset. They even discuss in this manuscript differences between how CA reports stuff compared with NY. (This is kind of a se

I guess, but it’s a heterogeneous dataset. They even discuss in this manuscript differences between how CA reports stuff compared with NY. (This is kind of a separate issue where CDC could have lead on data standardization, but not everyone in the US agrees about the Feds playing that role in this case; kind of a separate issue) The CDC also has covidnet, which doesn’t have the data heterogeneity problem so much, but I’m not sure it has the vaccination status breakdown needed for this study. CDC has famously not done a good job breaking that down… https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose-methods.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-n... Anyway, none of this is to say that they’re definitely not doing a cherry picking exercise, but at least one should read the paper and decide if the choices they make about data sources and analysis are reasonable. Not super productive to just immediately assume bad faith, IMO. Especially since the conclusions are consistent with research from other institutions/countries