I've got to stop going to andrewsullivan.com. It's really depressing.
Consider the most recent example: Andrew Sullivan's decision to attack the Centers for Disease Control staff as mendacious government hacks--"Imagine the panic among the AIDS lobby if they had to report that the rate of infections were declining!"--who put out phony numbers:
Here are two consecutive paragraphs [from the New York Times] "Federal officials said they felt confident in reporting that the number of new H.I.V. infections has been stable in recent years, with an estimated 40,000 Americans becoming infected each year. Government officials estimate that 900,000 Americans are living with H.I.V. or AIDS. The number has increased by 50,000 since 1998, largely because advances in treatment have controlled the infection in many people, allowing some to go back to work and live longer." If 40,000 are infected each year, shouldn't over 120,000 new infections have been logged since 1998? So why only 50,000? No one at the CDC really answers that question ever.
The obvious answer is: No. We would not expect the number of HIV infections to have grown by 120,000. People die of AIDS. The number of HIV infections is the number of old infections, plus the number of new infections, minus the number who have died.
Sullivan admits in a parenthetical aside that he plays fast and loose with the truth in telling his readers that there was a large inconsistency--120,000 vs. 50,000--that "no one at the CDC really answers... ever." However, he hastens to say that "factoring in deaths doesn't help": there are still "20,000 alleged infections unaccounted for." And here he, once again, plays fast and loose with the truth. Factoring in deaths does help: it reduces the gap Sullivan focuses on from 70,000 to 20,000. When CDC staff brief New York Times reporters they round estimated infections to the nearest 50,000 in order to avoid implying that their estimates are more precise than they are. In this context, 20,000 cases is rounding error.
CDC tries to be good communicators of statistics--not to imply by giving too many significant figures that there is more precision in their numbers than is warranted. They get rewarded by having their words falsely spun--for no reason at all--into acts of sleaze.
Posted by DeLong at July 08, 2002 03:43 PM | TrackbackMy initial inclination is to clap the Professor on the back and say, "Well Done!" Summarizing all the numbers, and relying on Sullivan's figures, we seem to be saying that, in 1998, 850,000 people were living with HIV/AIDS. 40,000 new infections per year for three years is 120,000, less 50,000 deaths, less 0 cured takes us to 920,000 today. The CDC reports 900,000, which is well within rounding error, so why is Sullivan being such a jerk?
Hey, a rare moment of solidarity with the Professor. Kind of fun. But let me dip my keyboard in acid and continue.
Sullivan opened with "Here's why I'm a bit of a skeptic with regard to CDC AIDS stats." Somehow, in the Professor's rendition, that becomes, "Andrew Sullivan's decision to attack the Centers for Disease Control staff as mendacious government hacks...". Hmmm. Does "quit while your ahead" register? You are winning the argument, and Sullivan's credibility is crumbling; why shatter your own? Is that how they do it out there in CA, when a guy is losing you hand him some ammunition?
So now I actually read Sullivan's post yet again. His question? "Imagine the panic among the AIDS lobby if they had to report that the rate of infections were declining!" Maybe all he is doing is contemplating the possibility that, rather than 40,00 new infections per year, we have seen, for example, 40,000 in 1999, 35,000 in 2000, and 30,000 in 2001. Total new infections of "only" 105,000; projected total cases of 905,000. This is closer to the 900,000 under discussion. And it would be consistent with a decling rate of infection that Sullivan mentions.
So now I'm stumped. Sullivan clearly did not present his case well; you, Professor, drowned out your effective rebuttal with your own shouting. Leaving us where? Clearly, Sullivan ought to clarify his comments, although I expect he's more likely to if someone asks politely and credibly. Meanwhile, I guess both the Ted Williams All-Star MVP and the not quite as prestigious "Golden Debunker" go unclaimed.
I would like to close on a positive note, and re-create that good-time feeling I had at the outset. So cheer up, Professor; I see your comment that "I've got to stop going to andrewsullivan.com. It's really depressing" and I want to reassure you: your readers are well accustomed to sloging through mud to find some gold. Maybe in this post we found some - shine it up a bit, and who knows?
Regards,
Tom Maguire
Posted by: Tom Maguire on July 11, 2002 10:27 AM