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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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."
Boss: "Okay".
a few days later
Boss: "Y is not true, we should re-evaluate X since Y is what convinced us"
This would be a totally fair exchange and 100% correct. It does not matter if there are 5 other things that prompted me to bring this up to my boss. I hung my hat on Y being true and that's how I presented it. It's what convinced us. It shouldn't be a big deal for me, as an adult and a professional, to say "yep, I messed up. here's the other reasons to still do X."
Which is why they have 100x more credibility than some uncredentialed anti-masker with an axe to grind.
I'm glad we're both on the same page.
Then there are bad faith discussions about the CDC's credibility.
Are you aware that repeatedly exposing someone to false information leads them to believe it?
If you start from the belief that the CDC is credible, you can use phrases like, "The CDC made a mistake in relying on this study."
If you start from the belief that the CDC is not credible, you would can use phrases like "CDC / Junk Science."
You could, as another commented on this thread, say "If the CDC intentionally chose to lie to the public about their reason for a decision, that's really really bad."
There's is ZERO EVIDENCE that they intentionally lied.
That's like me saying, "If user lghh was involved in dog fighting, that's really really bad."
I have no evidence of it, and it gives people a bad impression of you.
The CDC has well-earned credibility, and the people who are questioning the CDC most effectively in the public circle (Fox News, Infowars, Joe Rogan) should have lost any credibility they had long, long ago. But questioning the CDC is profitable. People are exploiting fears to make money.
So, if you want to engage in good faith discussions, that's awesome. But maybe, just maybe, avoid phrases like "The study (implying there was only one) that convinced the CDC to support mask mandates in schools is JUNK SCIENCE!"
You: "I just ran up the stairs, so that blood pressure reading is junk science."
Doctor: "Oh, okay then, yeah, then you are unique in all of mankind that you no longer need to worry about a healthy diet and exercise."
It is totally reasonable to ask for the other evidence they used to support mask mandates for kids, yes, for sure. It's not reasonable to even imply mask mandates for kids are junk science. Not yet.
Should we continue our dialog with the CDC? Yes.
Was the CDC intentionally basing its decisions on Junk Science? No.
Was this one study the one that "convinced" the CDC? Some people in this thread (including the author) seem certain it was. I believe their certainty is ridiculous.
I think we're talking past each other.
> It's not reasonable to even imply mask mandates for kids are junk science. Not yet.
Nobody did this. I didn't. The posted links didn't. This never happened. Can you point out what you read that made you think this was anyone's point? In fact, the linked article specifically says this isn't the case.
I am stating my belief that the article headline did exactly that:
"The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science."
That reads to me as click bait, which gives the impression, "Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science."
I can state that because the headline has the phrase, "Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science" at the end of it, and people are lazy readers.
I'm also stating my belief that the author has NO WAY of knowing how many studies the CDC used to convince them to support Mask Mandates in Schools, so it's wildly inappropriate for the author to use the word "THE." They should have instead said "A."
It strictly does not do that and neither does the article beyond the headline. We'll agree to disagree.
I even gave you a reason why they would: people are lazy readers. Do you deny that?
The phrase at the end of the sentence is what people will pay attention to. Do you deny that?
I'm informing you: there are people who will get the wrong impression from that headline. Apparently among them, Facebook Fact Checkers.
I have as much evidence for my bad faith statement as you do for yours.
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.
It was both _technically_ correct and also correct on its face. I will say that the article is a bit of a rehash of the quoted The Atlantic article, but that should be even more reason that its fact-checked removal is dubious. They even have very similar titles, so it's not like Reason's title is particularly inflammatory. Is The Atlantic also a political rag?
Theses are 7-day metrics for positive cases. - California: 59,487 - Florida: 179,586 - Massachusetts: 49,628 - New York: 93,309
If you're talking about deaths/1M pop, California (1905) is much lower than Florida (2905) whilst Massachusetts is fractionally higher (2922) but New York (3068) is dramatically higher, yes.
If you're not talking about deaths/1M pop, which rate are you looking at?
https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/states-ranked-by-age-...
But assuming these are valid numbers: by this metric, both California (214) and Mass. (206) are doing better than Florida (235) which again contradicts the claim. Or am I reading these numbers wrongly?
Basically, let everyone choose their own risk tolerance, and accept that we can't control this. Very slowly, after years of trying to fight the inevitable, liberal states are understanding this. But they are still pretending that a force-field surrounds you the moment you start eating food or drinking which makes masks not required at that moment, which is obviously absurd.
Here in SF the force field comes into effect the instant you sit down at your table and only dissipates when you stand up to leave... but God help you if, after a 90 minute maskless meal, you don't put your mask back on for the 15 second walk to the door.
It takes a lot to violate ones trust, but once its there, you don't get it back overnight. I speculate we are at the cusp of no return- the only way I can see new trust in any big US govt organization is well what history tells us. Destruction and recreation.
Political: Unverified; Sensationalist: Unverified
(Edit: small "l" libertarian does not equal political party or affiliation)