2 ms·

> 1. "Dropping at a historic rate" is such a weird thing to brag when it's just falling back to the pre-Covid level. You've mixed up the current level with the

> 1. "Dropping at a historic rate" is such a weird thing to brag when it's just falling back to the pre-Covid level. You've mixed up the current level with the rate of decline. The article is pretty clear about it.

aeternum 3y ago
It's easy to have a historic rate of decline if you just had a historic rate of increase.
raincole 3y ago
I'll say it again: "Dropping at a historic rate" is such a weird thing to brag when it's just falling back to the pre-Covid level. I didn't mix up anything. Covid is a very abnormal event, and seeing the numbers go back to pre-Covid quickly after Covid is more or less expected. It's a good thing (if it's true), but not that newsworthy.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  > but not that newsworthy. It may be expected, but I disagree that it's not newsworthy. If a sharp-rise is newsworthy, then it's also important to inform people of the sharp-drop. Even if it makes sense to expect a sharp-drop after an anomalous sharp-rise, if you only report the sharp-rise then you leave people misinformed about the current situation. I think it's fine to complain about the framing of the article, but I think the fact itself is newsworthy.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    Technically right, but using "historic" instead of "pre-COVID" is a form of propaganda targeted to people who don't pay attention, and is rightly flagged.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      > I think it's fine to complain about the framing of the article
zo1 3y ago
I'm a really capable and well-read English speaker and I missed that subtle detail. No wonder people distrust the legacy media.