Data Analysis, Surprising and Not

Surprising news from The New York Times:

— Actual Coronavirus Infections Vastly Undercounted, C.D.C. Data Shows —

The prevalence of infections is more than 10 times higher than the counted number of cases in six regions of the United States.

The analysis is part of a wide-ranging set of surveys started by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to estimate how widely the virus has spread. Similar studies, sponsored by universities, national governments and the World Health Organization, are continuing all over the world….

โ€œThis study underscores that there are probably a lot of people infected without knowing it, likely because they have mild or asymptomatic infection,โ€ said Dr. Fiona Havers, who led the C.D.C. study. โ€œBut those people could still spread it to others.โ€

She emphasized the importance of hand-washing, wearing cloth masks and social distancing to stop the spread of the virus from people without symptoms. [Getting tested is an excellent idea too, even if you have no symptoms.]

The numbers indicate that even in areas hit hard by the virus, an overwhelming majority of people have not yet been infected, said Scott Hensley, a viral immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania….

โ€œMany of us are sitting ducks who are still susceptible …,โ€ he said.

Not surprising news (not surprising at all) from The Washington Post:

Three serious research efforts have put numerical weight โ€” yes, data-driven evidence โ€” behind what many suspected all along: Americans who relied on Fox News, or similar right-wing sources, were duped as theย coronavirusย began its deadly spread.

Dangerously duped.

The studies โ€œpaint a picture of a media ecosystem that amplifies misinformation, entertains conspiracy theories and discourages audiences from taking concrete steps to protect themselves and others,โ€ย wrote [The Post’s] Christopher Ingraham in an analysis last week.

Hereโ€™s the reality, now backed byย numbers:

Those who relied on mainstream sources โ€” the network evening newscasts or national newspapers that President Txxxx constantly blasts as โ€œfake newsโ€ โ€” got an accurate assessment of the pandemicโ€™s risks. Those were the news consumers who were more likely to respond accordingly, protecting themselves and others against the disease that has now killed more than 123,000 in the United States with no end in sight.

Those who [like the “Leader of the Free World”] relied on Fox or, say, radio personality Rush Limbaugh, came to believe that vitamin C was a possible remedy, that the Chinese government created the virus in a lab, and that government health agencies were exaggerating the dangers in the hopes of damaging Txxxx politically, a survey showed….

โ€œThatโ€™s the real evil of this type of programming,โ€ Arthur West of the Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics, …ย toldย the Times of San Diego. โ€œWe believe it delayed and interfered with a prompt and adequate response to this coronavirus pandemic.โ€

Unquote.

Mass manslaughter, anyone?