(1/19) @philvischer & @SkyeJethani, I saw your video that questions whether overturning Roe is the key to reducing abortion.
Glad you're interested in the data. Evidence from the past 40 yrs shows electing pro-life candidates has helped reduce the U.S. abortion rate by over 50%
-Public funding limits on abortion
-Parental involvement laws
-Informed consent laws
-Waiting periods
-Partial-birth abortion bans
Meanwhile, judges appointed by Democratic Presidents almost always vote to strike down these common-sense, life affirming, pro-life laws.
https://t.co/rGI1Zj6ECU
There is a body of research which shows that limits on taxpayer funding of abortion reduce abortion rates.
https://t.co/wrV3xj8n5M
Sure, abortions were taking place before Roe v. Wade.
However, the evidence clearly shows that Roe v. Wade dramatically increased the abortion rate in the United States.
By 1980 -- just seven years after Roe - - there were almost 1.3 million abortions.
This is an increase of over 121% in just eight years!
A big reason why Delaware's abortion rate dropped 37% between 2014 and 2017 is that in 2016 an abortion facility owned by infamous abortionist Stephen Chase Brigham was shut down.
However, that is again because Kermit Gosnell's abortion clinic closed in 2011 and the Wilmington, DE Planned Parenthood closed in 2013.
On the other hand, there are plenty of good studies which show that various pro-life laws reduce the incidence of abortion.
There has been a long-term, durable decline in the U.S. abortion rate since 1980 that has persisted through both Democratic and Republican Presidential administrations.
As such, there was an increase in the number of state-level pro-life laws. Many of these laws were upheld by judges appointed by Republican Presidents.
It is likely because Planned Parenthood was simply getting more reimbursements from state Medicaid programs.
This shows the pro-life educational, service, and, yes, legislative efforts have all been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion.
More from Society
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%
Brief thread to debunk the repeated claims we hear about transmission not happening 'within school walls', infection in school children being 'a reflection of infection from the community', and 'primary school children less likely to get infected and contribute to transmission'.
I've heard a lot of scientists claim these three - including most recently the chief advisor to the CDC, where the claim that most transmission doesn't happen within the walls of schools. There is strong evidence to rebut this claim. Let's look at
Let's look at the trends of infection in different age groups in England first- as reported by the ONS. Being a random survey of infection in the community, this doesn't suffer from the biases of symptom-based testing, particularly important in children who are often asymptomatic
A few things to note:
1. The infection rates among primary & secondary school children closely follow school openings, closures & levels of attendance. E.g. We see a dip in infections following Oct half-term, followed by a rise after school reopening.
We see steep drops in both primary & secondary school groups after end of term (18th December), but these drops plateau out in primary school children, where attendance has been >20% after re-opening in January (by contrast with 2ndary schools where this is ~5%).
I've heard a lot of scientists claim these three - including most recently the chief advisor to the CDC, where the claim that most transmission doesn't happen within the walls of schools. There is strong evidence to rebut this claim. Let's look at
The science shows us that most disease transmission does not happen in the walls of the school, but it comes in from the community. So, CDC is advocating to get our K-5 students back in school at least in a hybrid mode with universal mask wearing and 6 ft of distancing. https://t.co/dfvJ2nl2s4
— Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH (@CDCDirector) February 14, 2021
Let's look at the trends of infection in different age groups in England first- as reported by the ONS. Being a random survey of infection in the community, this doesn't suffer from the biases of symptom-based testing, particularly important in children who are often asymptomatic
A few things to note:
1. The infection rates among primary & secondary school children closely follow school openings, closures & levels of attendance. E.g. We see a dip in infections following Oct half-term, followed by a rise after school reopening.
We see steep drops in both primary & secondary school groups after end of term (18th December), but these drops plateau out in primary school children, where attendance has been >20% after re-opening in January (by contrast with 2ndary schools where this is ~5%).
