That's not hard...
But, it will prove to be disappointing if you're expecting it to be hyper-political, at all...
But, right off the top... real science always comes with prominent "disclaimers" revealing the potential biases of the investigators... so that others can judge the work in proper context. If you do a study of smokers health, funded by tobacco companies... or by anti-smoking advocates... you should disclose that fact of affiliation and funding as an obvious factor in bias. Where does this article disclose the author as a years long Obama administration insider at the OMB ? Why fail to mention that ? Giant red flag.
Politics, as a top layer, intrinsically defines one's biases. So the question you're asking really isn't about politics, but about bias... and, perhaps, about how bias in "science" can alter the result in "findings"... and how legitimate science manages the problem while addressing bias, in order to remove it.
I use quotes around one use of the word "science" for reason...
There is legitimate purpose, in real science... while partisans, to exploit science for partisan gains, merely need to subvert the intent of that legitimate process... by not following the standards intended to filter bias.
Typically, for partisans pushing an agenda, that's easily accomplished... just by picking the frame of reference that "makes the point for you"... cherry picking data... and then backing out from the "finding" you want... to write an article as if you had started out not knowing what the result would be. So, look first at the "frame of reference" adopted in the study... and ask... why is that the frame of reference being used ? Does that selection, in itself, bias the likely findings ?
In real science, you don't start out by choosing what you want the result to say... and then proceed while looking for ways to support your argument ? In real science, you start out with a curiosity, not knowing the answer you seek, while you look for ways to conduct the work that will answer the point of your curiosity without biasing the result. So, before you start... explain to me... how you did that ?
In questioning other scientists work... that's where you start... by asking questions about the entering assumptions and why they're valid in providing an "unbiased" frame of reference. You always start assuming bias exists... and look for proofs that the authors were deliberate in making efforts to ensure their choices of data and a frame of reference were selected only because the choice made intended to and clearly would work to de-bias the effort... and provide a valid answer... and not work to provide advocacy in "talking points" for an already held belief...
So, look at the article and ask... why does the data selected for consideration, and the frame of reference adopted... ensure an un-baised result ? Does the article begin... as science should... by addressing the efforts made to ensure meaningful findings that are, by design, capable of proving they are unbiased ?
For this article, that means... where is the explanation for why they chose the outlines they did, as: "We compared the US to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with populations exceeding 5 million and greater than $25?000 per capita gross domestic product".
Where do you see an explanation of why that particular comparison matters... or is at all relevant... in relation to proving something important about the virus... or leaders choices in address it ? Why use those criteria... instead of some other ?
Take the same "framing" in the question, for example... as ask the same question they did... not of the aggregate of the United States... but of the individual states ? Here's a list of US states by population.
Note that the states taken individually... appear to offer a perfectly rational alternative to making a BETTER comparison... since the states taken individually more closely match the criteria inherent in the selection they made of "what to compare the US to"...
To be valid science... you would have to show a basic comparability between the two things being compared... so that the differences revealed in making the comparison would be shown to be meaningful. Do the OECD countries... control their own choices in how they addressed the problem ? What was the range of variation in the choices they made in how they addressed the problem ? If you have two baskets of apples to compare... show us how it makes sense to compare those two baskets... in order to make the point you are about the differences between the contents of one basket and another ?
This article clearly fails that test... not just on those procedural grounds of failing to reveal known bias, and failing to explain why the comparison that is made... makes any sense to bother making.
In the U.S., the choices made in addressing the problem... varied widely... by state... because it is the governors of states... and not the central authority... who decides what the policy implemented will be.
Given that the states, taken individually, are a closer match for the OECD country criteria... and both the states and (one assumes) each of the OECD countries was individually responsible for selecting its own, different, approach to the problem... the only correct comparison to be made, in address the value of choices made... would be to compare US states and OECD countries... based on the nature of the WIDE differences in their policy choices... and not their common association by geography ?
What would you see... if you made the same study... only comparing US states with each other ?
Perhaps that would explain... why a partisan would choose to do a study lumping the states all together... in order compare the aggregate in OUTCOME, and not individual states individual outcome, with similar countries, to show how outcome in both correlates based on the nature of the different CHOICES made ?
This study is designed... to blame Trump... for the disaster resulting from the bad choices that were made in a couple of states... which happen to have Democrats as governors.
A cynic might even suggest some of those governors did what they did on purpose... to enable blaming Trump for the outcome ?
. |
