[BostonCard]

Look forward to all the commentators - scientific and MSM - ripping this report a new one for their sloppy methodologies that painted a misleading (or at least potentially very misleading) picture about the mortality rate . . . actually, I'm not.

Question (legit, I don't know), did the MSM cover this paper that much?  This was the only article I could find:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...d-in-study

I'm sure there are others, but there is so much COVID-19 coverage that I don't know that this specific article got that much coverage, and we all know that clarifications rarely get as much coverage as the original.

As for commentators, I can't speak for others, but I thought my misunderstanding of the article was significant enough that I replied to the post with the clarification and edited the subject so it said "NOW WITH IMPORTANT CAVEAT, read reply".  I will happily rip the article for sloppy methodology if it would make you feel better, but the methodology of only using adjudicated outcomes is pretty standard, and the mortality from ventilators was not the main point of the paper (it was a general description of the experience with the outbreak in New York).  Yes, they should have made clear that they were only talking about the relatively small subset of patients with an adjudicated outcome, especially as these days so much literature is coming out that many of us don't have the time to read papers with as much detail as is necessary.

BC

[BostonCard]

Look forward to all the commentators - scientific and MSM - ripping this report a new one for their sloppy methodologies that painted a misleading (or at least potentially very misleading) picture about the mortality rate . . . actually, I'm not.

Question (legit, I don't know), did the MSM cover this paper that much?  This was the only article I could find:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...d-in-study

I'm sure there are others, but there is so much COVID-19 coverage that I don't know that this specific article got that much coverage, and we all know that clarifications rarely get as much coverage as the original.

As for commentators, I can't speak for others, but I thought my misunderstanding of the article was significant enough that I replied to the post with the clarification and edited the subject so it said "NOW WITH IMPORTANT CAVEAT, read reply".  I will happily rip the article for sloppy methodology if it would make you feel better, but the methodology of only using adjudicated outcomes is pretty standard, and the mortality from ventilators was not the main point of the paper (it was a general description of the experience with the outbreak in New York).  Yes, they should have made clear that they were only talking about the relatively small subset of patients with an adjudicated outcome, especially as these days so much literature is coming out that many of us don't have the time to read papers with as much detail as is necessary.

BC