Weekend thoughts.

March 11, 2023

          I am sending a short(-ish) newsletter to open the Comments section to subscribers.

A recommendation.

          Simon Rosenberg is a veteran political analyst who correctly predicted that the "red wave of 2022" would not materialize. Readers who attended his presentations rave about the quality of his analysis and the optimism of his message. He joined Substack yesterday, and his "welcome' message suggests that readers of this newsletter may be interested in what Simon has to say. His Substack location is here: Simon Rosenberg, Welcome to My New Home, Hopium Chronicles (substack.com).

          Here is part of Simon's "welcome" message:

          I am calling [my Substack blog] "Hopium Chronicles" because I want this to be a journey guided by hope and optimism, of belief in ourselves, in the love of country and a clear understanding of the nature of the conflict we are in. I have become convinced that part of Greater MAGA's strategy is to intentionally poison our discourse with negative sentiment every day. They want us to feel bad about America, our democracy, our leaders, our institutions, our success, each other, ourselves. We cannot let them do that any more. While they talk American down every day, we need to talk it up.

          We all need more sources of optimism and hope in our lives! Check out Simon's blog. And welcome to Substack, Simon! Glad to have another positive voice to help push back against the negativity and disinformation that forms a central part of the MAGA playbook.

The Cochrane metadata analysis regarding the efficacy of masks.

          Okay, this is the last time I will talk about the Cochrane metadata study on masks, but this is important: The study has been wildly and irresponsibly cited as proof that "masks don't work." As I and others have noted, the study says no such thing. But that didn't stop ill-informed commentators like Brett Stephens in the NYTimes from writing op-eds with titles like "Opinion | The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be (nytimes.com). (Stephens quotes one of the authors of the study: "There is just no evidence that they" — masks — "make any difference. . . "Full stop.”)

          On Friday, the Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, Karla Soares-Weiser, issued this remarkable clarification of the metadata study:

Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

[T]he results [of the study] were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

The original Plain Language Summary for this review . . . was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset.

          In short, the Cochrane metadata analysis did not examine whether masks work when they are worn. The metadata analysis looked at whether efforts "to promote mask wearing" helps slow the spread of disease. An analogy would be the difference between these two things: (a) Studying the use of advertisements encouraging the use of seat belts in reducing traffic fatalities, versus (b) studying the actual use of seat belts in reducing traffic fatalities. See the difference? Concluding that advertising does little to encourage seat belt use says nothing about whether actually using seat belts helps to prevent traffic fatalities.

          This entire sorry episode is an embarrassment for the Cochrane Library, the NYTimes (which should require Brett Stephens to post a retraction), and thousands of other commentators who cited the Cochrane metadata analysis as "the final word" about the effectiveness of masks. Anyone who took the time to read the study should have understood that it proved nothing—and anyone who wrote about the study should have read it. The lesson we should take from the Cochrane study is that we can't believe everything we read on the Internet!

Ron DeSantis's Freudian slip is showing.

          Ron DeSantis has run roughshod over civil liberties in Florida, courtesy of a gerrymandered majority that does his bidding. But he is getting pushback on everything he does. And as Simon Rosenberg (discussed above) has tweeted, a recent poll by Navigator Research shows that Ron DeSantis is on the wrong end of every issue in the 2024 campaign cycle, including perceptions about "wokeness," efforts to protect children from guns rather than books, and access to affordable healthcare.

          DeSantis lurched far to the right over the last year in an effort to outflank Trump. But it appears that he has outflanked the electorate—and that reality is beginning to sink in. DeSantis has begun to hold campaign-style events to deny the obvious truth of his efforts. Earlier this week, he held an event called the "Banned Book Hoax" as he bragged about efforts to keep some books out of the classroom. See The Advocate, DeSantis Calls Book Bans a Hoax, Brags About Banning Books.

          The point is that DeSantis wouldn't feel the need to lie to deny the obvious intent of his policies unless he feels vulnerable to the charge that he is banning books. Which he is. See WaPo, Opinion | Ron DeSantis's book ban mania targets Jodi Picoult — and she hits back.

          Ron DeSantis is starting to sweat. Good.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Joe Biden is feeling confident these days—confident enough to poke his critics by engaging in self-deprecating humor. In a speech on Friday, he said,

I have never been more optimistic about America's future than I am today. I mean that sincerely. As you can tell, I've only been around a few years. Like 400.

          You gotta love a guy who is 400 years old—and proud of it!

Have a good weekend! Talk to you on Monday!