11–20 of 21 posts
Direct anchor link to the NYT source data table: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/upshot/five-w...
Then why can't I close the dialog box asking me to sign up and view the reported data?
The implication of the title, that rural cities in general have overtaken NYC isn't necessarily backed up by the data, unless it can be shown to be a pattern in a huge number of rural cities, such the the combined population of those reaches a level of statistical significance. The data in the NYT article also shows more rural cities that have lower case rates than NYC. The more likely scenario is that these rural ci…
My reading of it was definitely not "rural cities in general" but rather just some rural cities. I can see the ambiguity, but I think it's important to read headlines with the understanding that they will never be a substitute for the story.
TLDR: Three rural cities. Given some basic assumptions about the distribution of case rates, it's not at all surprising that a few cities from that fairly large set happen to exceed NYC. Nothing to see here.
Probably why the label that gets thrown around of "fake media" is so sticky
This post is from a NYTimes story from about a month ago: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/upshot/five-w... Those very few limited rural cities that were ahead of NYC at the time had things like prisons and meat packing plants. The NY Times has a bunch of stats here they keep updated, including current Per Capita numbers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-c...
TLDR: Three rural cities. Given some basic assumptions about the distribution of case rates, it's not at all surprising that a few cities from that fairly large set happen to exceed NYC. Nothing to see here.
Agreed. How can a media outlet can extrapolate this into the title is incredible to me. Probably why the label that gets thrown around of "fake media" is so sticky
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. How can a media outlet can extrapolate this into the title is incredible to me. Probably why the label that gets thrown around of "fake media" is so sticky
Here's another beauty: https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1265636238255669252?s...
Particularly shameful coming from Pew, who I think of as one of the last fairly neutral sources.
The implication of the title, that rural cities in general have overtaken NYC isn't necessarily backed up by the data, unless it can be shown to be a pattern in a huge number of rural cities, such the the combined population of those reaches a level of statistical significance. The data in the NYT article also shows more rural cities that have lower case rates than NYC. The more likely scenario is that these rural ci…
Headlines are always ambiguous-they are too short to be otherwise. My reading of it was definitely not "rural cities in general" but rather just some rural cities. I can see the ambiguity, but I think it's important to read headlines with the understanding that they will never be a substitute for the story.
TLDR: Three rural cities. Given some basic assumptions about the distribution of case rates, it's not at all surprising that a few cities from that fairly large set happen to exceed NYC. Nothing to see here.
Agreed. How can a media outlet can extrapolate this into the title is incredible to me. Probably why the label that gets thrown around of "fake media" is so sticky
First it was Florida, which was going to be far worse than Italy. Then it was Georgia, because they were opening far too soon. Now I guess they're just saying "Rural".
Direct anchor link to the NYT source data table: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/upshot/five-w...
>Our essential coronavirus coverage is free. Create an account or log in to keep reading. No subscription required. Then why can't I close the dialog box asking me to sign up and view the reported data?