1/
This is an interesting review and a good intro to new municipalism (or what @davidjmadden calls 'socialist municipalism')
But it misses some key aspects of what makes the movement distinctive, and distinct from London's municipal socialism.
So here’s a thread on municipalism...
"Politically, socialist municipalism is fundamentally different than the elitist, real-estate-allied stance toward urban development that has come to be known as \u2018urbanism'."@owenhatherley's Red Metropolis reviewed by @davidjmadden for @jacobinmag. \U0001f3d7\ufe0f https://t.co/yF5IZa0FmD
— Repeater Books (@RepeaterBooks) January 26, 2021
1/
2/
3/
4/
5/
6/
7/
8/
9/
10/
11/
12/
13/
14/
@alterurbanist's take on Fearless Cities and new municipalism as moving beyond the 'local trap' (in @antipodeonline): https://t.co/QFs7PRP3hH
15/
work (@rosalux_global) on the centrally important practice of feminising politics: https://t.co/a3Hu8qzvQt
16/
https://t.co/y2aCmeyKNC
17/
https://t.co/qL17JkkwZ3
18/
More from Society
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
