Why is it so hard to say "Desantis is clearly wrong, regardless if he is talking about infections or deaths and he needs to apologize for that misinformation"
I haven't looked at that yet. Before I do that work, could you let me know if you can follow my calculations/train of thought?
So I haven't really done a deep analysis, but just from looking at the available data, it looks like - it is not caused by having an older population in this case - Texas has a smaller percentage of people 65+ compared to California (13.2% vs. 15.1%), so there must be other reasons - vaccination rates 65+ are slightly lower in Texas vs. California (92.5% vs. 94.3% fully vaccinated) - vaccination rates 18-64 are quite a bit lower in Texas vs. California (69.6 % vs. 77.9% fully vaccinated) - I also don't know if it took Texas longer to get there in terms of vaccinations - Texas has a higher rate of obesity compared to California (according to this source 35.8 % adult obesity in Texas vs. 30.3 % in California) - Texas also has a higher rate of diabetes compared to California (according this source 13 % diabetes in Texas vs. 10.2 % in California) I don't know if that explains it all. The rates of infection seem very similar according to the FT, which appears to be one main source that Brown University Dean had been citing (added Florida to the chart as well, for comparison): So my answer to your question is - I don't really know if all the differences shown above fully explain the difference in death rates between Texas and California, but in this case, age-adjusted, Texas looks even worse than California (while Florida and California are not far apart once you adjust for age).
I do see some of where your train of thought for parts of this thread. Other times it seems slanted and twisting the data. Just looking at the Florida vs. CA senior citizens, I can see where you are coming from. It's very hard with so many variables. That's true for both sides of the debate.
Thanks - what about the infection rates being identical, despite very different levels of restrictions in terms of mask mandates, closures, lockdowns, etc.? Can you see why this looks like an indication to me that all these mandates and measures have little real world impact (regardless of lab experiments showing that certain masks work)?
Well, there are too many variables. Amount of insured, hospital space, quality of coverage and healthcare, etc. There are numerous examples of how the mandates have helped etc. I can understand how with all of the many variables the studies can be used to bolster whatever side one leans towards. That is true of all of the studies. I like the studies that show comparison of deaths in years prior to Covid19 where possible. Ideally the variables would have been consistent between the span of years.
I already did the analysis myself earlier in the thread, but other people also noticed that the tweets by Slavitt were blatant misinformation.
The variables you mentioned seem to be more relevant for hospitalization and deaths, but I specifically asked about rate of infection. That's specifically what is meant to be impacted by all the mask mandates and isolation measures. Yet, the rates of infection are the same in CA and FL (and TX). How can one not conclude that the mask mandates etc. had no impact?
We could add population density and human behavior to the list. California has larger cities with much greater population density. In fact the idea that they are the same given that factor would seem to indicate a level of effectiveness in mask mandates. That's the biggest one. But people that wear their masks as a chin guard rather than properly will also play a part.
Florida has higher population density than California. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
Actually that's great data to support your point. I presumed because of the larger cities in California that would count towards population density. Was this data calculated vs. number of people in a ratio to square miles or whatever measurement? That might be off because Florida has less land, and the population density in the city centers in California might be higher. Perhaps the census bureau uses a different way of calculating and what I said isn't valid. I'm not 100% sure.
https://news.yahoo.com/lockdown-sta...e-florida-new-covid-data-shows-153025163.html https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-14/california-defies-doom-with-no-1-u-s-economy The top economy in the nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California I think unemployment may not be the top in CA. But as far as overall economy, it tops the US during Covid. That's amazing considering how much of the economy comes from tourism and how Covid19 affected tourism. California is the number one tourist destination in the United States as well. The nation has had years of surplus budget as well.
Bro..... you are obsessed with being right about Covid and missing the forest through the trees. And again..... it's not child abuse. Hyperbole only weakens your position.
