In the beginning of the pandemic, I wrote a lot of posts addressing and countering mis- and dis-information. I’ve largely stopped because I am, quite frankly, tired of fighting. As Jonathan Swift said, “A lie goes around the world before the truth get its pants on.” We also need more proactive, rather than reactive, communication. But an email was sent this morning to 6 million Americans from the
I wrote to David Leonhardt, May 31, when he wrote a recent misinformation column on masks and mandates not working: he infuriates me--he has a large audience and he "cherry picks" his experts and facts.
Here's what I wrote:
"I’m a physician. The pandemic drags on, with the US having far more deaths than other countries and misinformation contributes to our failure of public health.
Today’s newsletter is a classic of your brand of misinformation: citing experts who share your bias and presenting opinions as facts. Why don't you quote Bob Wachter's most recent Twitter post: If you're trying to stay well, time to up your game
Interview Gregg Gonsalves, Jeremy Faust, Esther Choo, Katelyn Jetelina— not just your small, curated group of proponents of failed public health policy. Your column is an excellent example of selection bias.
As this current surge is raging, quit pushing vaccination and Paxlovid as the only tools we have. Paxlovid was only tested on unvaccinated people during delta. Vaccination protects the individual and the current variants have immune escape. You know this.
Masks do work, and yet your column argues to drop them. Mandates work also--they're just not popular.
How about some balanced and accurate reporting?. We’re failing at containing this virus and more virulent variants are coming soon. Your brand of misinformation is particularly damaging.
I avoid Fox News, I never thought I'd have to avoid the NYT. "
I'm an NYT subscriber, and I have found The Morning's commentary on the pandemic to be VERY disappointing. My particular vantage point is that of someone with Long COVID. I think Leonhardt has routinely tried to show (peacock-style) that he has a new and interesting take on the pandemic. Unfortunately, his new/interesting takes are often misleading to the point of outright misinformation. In the Long COVID support community, we have given given everything he writes a standing trigger warning.
I subscribed just to make a comment. I saw an outraged thread from Yale about this. I want to say that, from the beginning, there was no representation at the table for most Americans, and especially PoC whose families tend to live in multigenerational houses. There was complete disregard for people who were unable to lockdown. So, if we want to talk about confounding factors, we need to look at all of this. I have worked for NIH, NSF, with some of the people who were part of this response and I found the thought in the NYT article that there is some change in the distribution of illness and death of great interest. We don't know if it is vaccines or something else, but it is interesting.
I worked with national labs and, in the beginning, they were interested in developing technology to increase safety and measurement of safety in indoor spaces. I could not get people in charge to hear this. At this point, humility could be very productive . I think it is a good time for representative, national groups to revisit models, approaches to decreasing transmission, etc. - including those that were suppressed and see which ones were best predictors of outcomes.
I am a liberal academic, but wish that all of us were better at these challenging conversations. Maybe this did confound factors -but people in biology, especially, do that all the time, in all honesty. I worked with NIH to increase statistical expertise in graduate training. So few understand the value of a technical replicate, for example. The politics of the time, with DJT president, threw everyone into System 1 thinking and alternate models seemed like threats. Some are awful, but maybe there are some that were more predictive of what happened than others.
I see so few authentic PoC at the table, I didn't see one PSA about best masks, best way to wear masks, where to put them, etc. We can do better and we need to have some insight so we serve all of our citizens better next time.
PLEASE send this to the NYT, they seem to be caught up in the current (not mindful) “breaking news” affecting so much speculation that passes for news currently. We deserve better from our “paper of record”!
Thanks for your deep dive into the data to provide a more accurate picture of racial disparities with Covid-19. I would encourage you to consider an Op-Ed piece (in your spare time - ha-ha!) for the NYT or a YLE-David Leonhardt point-counterpoint article. Thanks again for helping the NYT to keep its news fit to print.
I read that this morning and since it was in the NYT I thought it must have truth to it. I am so grateful you got this out and hope they recognize this publicly. We need the truth now and going forward. Instant news is not always the best news.
This is why I keep coming back to your analysis!!! You lay it all out in easy to understand language and help us get past the hyperbolic, misleading, and damaging politics of COVID. You are able to reach so many people with clear, understandable language. Please keep up your excellent work.
I read your newsletter to help me understand the sciences of public health. I am not a scientist but have a decent background in the basics including statistics. I want to always be aware of how mis- and disinformation is presented so maybe I can help others see the lies. Thank you for helping.
I was also puzzled by the NY Times coverage this morning. (I'm a biostatistician.) In addition to the age adjusted Simpson's paradox that you bring up, I was also thinking about the denominator--the population at risk. The NYTimes was highlighting vaccination (fair enough), but I thought there also should have been a discussion of the fact that so many people of color died early in the pandemic, that I suspect there are fewer people at high risk of death remaining in those communities.
I'm sure David Leonhardt is a nice guy and means well, but he has been committing this type of innumeracy for two years. This latest piece isn't much different.
I don't want to judge him too harshly because what he is doing is nothing unique in journalism. Highly recommend John Allen Paulos' "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" for an accessible collection of essays on this phenomenon. (Most examples come from early 90's, but still interesting).
This particular line of thought he has been building on since March [1], though his recent piece on May 31 was probably more controversial.
Katelyn - I write a Covid newsletter that focuses on my native state of Alabama. I've written over 450 letters, beginning in May 2020. In my state, the handful of Black Belt counties that have majority-black populations have generally fared better than white rural counties (located in northeast Alabama and the Wiregrass region of southeast Alabama) in terms of vaccination rates, infection rates and deaths. It makes me wonder if you might be making a similar mistake to the NYT. Adjusted for age is one thing, but what about if you adjust for geography. In the South, in particular, rural white citizens are overwhelmingly pro-Trump so they have lagged well behind in vaccination rates and other important metrics, such as mask-wearing and social distancing. Black citizens, on the other hand, have taken greater precautions, on the whole.
I have a question. Why aren't Hispanics/Latinos in the second group of graphs? I didn't notice that at first, but that seems amazing, since we are the largest "minority" group - with 63% of Hispanics in the US having Mexican-ancestry. Did you find that odd? Thanks.
I wrote to David Leonhardt, May 31, when he wrote a recent misinformation column on masks and mandates not working: he infuriates me--he has a large audience and he "cherry picks" his experts and facts.
Here's what I wrote:
"I’m a physician. The pandemic drags on, with the US having far more deaths than other countries and misinformation contributes to our failure of public health.
Today’s newsletter is a classic of your brand of misinformation: citing experts who share your bias and presenting opinions as facts. Why don't you quote Bob Wachter's most recent Twitter post: If you're trying to stay well, time to up your game
Interview Gregg Gonsalves, Jeremy Faust, Esther Choo, Katelyn Jetelina— not just your small, curated group of proponents of failed public health policy. Your column is an excellent example of selection bias.
As this current surge is raging, quit pushing vaccination and Paxlovid as the only tools we have. Paxlovid was only tested on unvaccinated people during delta. Vaccination protects the individual and the current variants have immune escape. You know this.
Masks do work, and yet your column argues to drop them. Mandates work also--they're just not popular.
How about some balanced and accurate reporting?. We’re failing at containing this virus and more virulent variants are coming soon. Your brand of misinformation is particularly damaging.
I avoid Fox News, I never thought I'd have to avoid the NYT. "
I'm an NYT subscriber, and I have found The Morning's commentary on the pandemic to be VERY disappointing. My particular vantage point is that of someone with Long COVID. I think Leonhardt has routinely tried to show (peacock-style) that he has a new and interesting take on the pandemic. Unfortunately, his new/interesting takes are often misleading to the point of outright misinformation. In the Long COVID support community, we have given given everything he writes a standing trigger warning.
I subscribed just to make a comment. I saw an outraged thread from Yale about this. I want to say that, from the beginning, there was no representation at the table for most Americans, and especially PoC whose families tend to live in multigenerational houses. There was complete disregard for people who were unable to lockdown. So, if we want to talk about confounding factors, we need to look at all of this. I have worked for NIH, NSF, with some of the people who were part of this response and I found the thought in the NYT article that there is some change in the distribution of illness and death of great interest. We don't know if it is vaccines or something else, but it is interesting.
I worked with national labs and, in the beginning, they were interested in developing technology to increase safety and measurement of safety in indoor spaces. I could not get people in charge to hear this. At this point, humility could be very productive . I think it is a good time for representative, national groups to revisit models, approaches to decreasing transmission, etc. - including those that were suppressed and see which ones were best predictors of outcomes.
I am a liberal academic, but wish that all of us were better at these challenging conversations. Maybe this did confound factors -but people in biology, especially, do that all the time, in all honesty. I worked with NIH to increase statistical expertise in graduate training. So few understand the value of a technical replicate, for example. The politics of the time, with DJT president, threw everyone into System 1 thinking and alternate models seemed like threats. Some are awful, but maybe there are some that were more predictive of what happened than others.
I see so few authentic PoC at the table, I didn't see one PSA about best masks, best way to wear masks, where to put them, etc. We can do better and we need to have some insight so we serve all of our citizens better next time.
PLEASE send this to the NYT, they seem to be caught up in the current (not mindful) “breaking news” affecting so much speculation that passes for news currently. We deserve better from our “paper of record”!
Thanks for your deep dive into the data to provide a more accurate picture of racial disparities with Covid-19. I would encourage you to consider an Op-Ed piece (in your spare time - ha-ha!) for the NYT or a YLE-David Leonhardt point-counterpoint article. Thanks again for helping the NYT to keep its news fit to print.
I read that this morning and since it was in the NYT I thought it must have truth to it. I am so grateful you got this out and hope they recognize this publicly. We need the truth now and going forward. Instant news is not always the best news.
I just forwarded your email to themorning@nytimes.com
This is why I keep coming back to your analysis!!! You lay it all out in easy to understand language and help us get past the hyperbolic, misleading, and damaging politics of COVID. You are able to reach so many people with clear, understandable language. Please keep up your excellent work.
I read your newsletter to help me understand the sciences of public health. I am not a scientist but have a decent background in the basics including statistics. I want to always be aware of how mis- and disinformation is presented so maybe I can help others see the lies. Thank you for helping.
Amazing you got this wise analysis out so quickly!!!
Thanks for your quick, eloquent and informative correction.
I was also puzzled by the NY Times coverage this morning. (I'm a biostatistician.) In addition to the age adjusted Simpson's paradox that you bring up, I was also thinking about the denominator--the population at risk. The NYTimes was highlighting vaccination (fair enough), but I thought there also should have been a discussion of the fact that so many people of color died early in the pandemic, that I suspect there are fewer people at high risk of death remaining in those communities.
I'm sure David Leonhardt is a nice guy and means well, but he has been committing this type of innumeracy for two years. This latest piece isn't much different.
I don't want to judge him too harshly because what he is doing is nothing unique in journalism. Highly recommend John Allen Paulos' "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" for an accessible collection of essays on this phenomenon. (Most examples come from early 90's, but still interesting).
This particular line of thought he has been building on since March [1], though his recent piece on May 31 was probably more controversial.
[1] https://www.eugyppius.com/p/nyt-do-covid-precautions-work-yes?s=r
Katelyn - I write a Covid newsletter that focuses on my native state of Alabama. I've written over 450 letters, beginning in May 2020. In my state, the handful of Black Belt counties that have majority-black populations have generally fared better than white rural counties (located in northeast Alabama and the Wiregrass region of southeast Alabama) in terms of vaccination rates, infection rates and deaths. It makes me wonder if you might be making a similar mistake to the NYT. Adjusted for age is one thing, but what about if you adjust for geography. In the South, in particular, rural white citizens are overwhelmingly pro-Trump so they have lagged well behind in vaccination rates and other important metrics, such as mask-wearing and social distancing. Black citizens, on the other hand, have taken greater precautions, on the whole.
I have a question. Why aren't Hispanics/Latinos in the second group of graphs? I didn't notice that at first, but that seems amazing, since we are the largest "minority" group - with 63% of Hispanics in the US having Mexican-ancestry. Did you find that odd? Thanks.
Thank you for clarifying this! I hope you and other scientists on this thread wrote in the NYT's comments section!