[ExI] cog bias again

[Henry Rivera]

The NYT covid reporting is free although you probably need to sign up for a free account to access it. You may as well given your interest in this topic. 

> On Sep 25, 2020, at 3:16 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>  
>  
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Henry Rivera via extropy-chat
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:55 AM
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Cc: Henry Rivera <hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] cog bias again
>  
> Rates have gone up significantly in North and South Dakota since Sturgis. Of course, they have also gone up other places too. From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html
>  
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> Hi Henry,
>  
> I started comparing the NYT data with the Worldometer data I have been using, wondering why they disagree.
>  
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/utah/
>  
> Then I discovered… what the NYT is plotting is apparently what Worldometer is calling “Active cases.”
>  
> That throws a new variable at us.  When someone is diagnosed as positive, they might go into the hospital, they might go home and tough it out (as my cousin and her husband did) or they might die.  If they die, they are taken off the active case list (I would presume) but if they go home and will not go back to the hospital (for fear of… what?) then it isn’t clear how they would be taken off the active case list. 
>  
> What the NYT should be graphing here is the new case data if we want to try to correlate this to a rally or event.  It appears the NYT is presenting active case data, then perhaps drawing conclusions inappropriate to that dataset, for each state has its own rules regarding when to consider a patient no longer and active case.
>  
> I don’t have access to the NYT so I couldn’t read their article.  Are they suggesting this data is indicating the Sturgis rally caused new case surges?  I am straining to believe an actual epidemiologist would make such a rookie error as using active case data when they should be using new-case data.  I can easily see journalists walking into that blunder: if they studied journalism in college, they are apparently unqualified to take an actual major.
>  
> spike
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200925/7c31aaf6/attachment.htm>