Torturing Statistics Until They Confess: An RTD Primer

Image credit: Richmond Times-Dispatch

by James A. Bacon

Sabrina Moreno with the Richmond Times-Dispatch has written a three-piece series arguing that disinvestment in the Virginia Department of Health led Latinos to being “the most likely to get infected, hospitalized and die” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fourth paragraph of the story makes the following extraordinary assertion:

Three months after Virginia’s first case, Latinos in Richmond were 38 times more likely to be infected than white residents and 17 times more likely to be hospitalized, according to a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis of COVID cases and hospitalizations.

That would be an extraordinary indictment of Virginia’s public health system, if true. But it’s not. Even if those particular factoids happen to be accurate for a particular place in time, which I question, it is monstrously misleading. The article did not publish the data, taken from the VDH COVID dashboard, that I now present you…

As of today, “Latinos” in Virginia account for 161,708 confirmed cases of COVID-19, or 9.8% of all confirmed cases. According to U.S. Census data, Hispanics in Virginia comprise exactly 9.8% of the population. If the overall proportion of Hispanics being infected by COVID-19 is identical to their proportion of the population, one might seriously question the accuracy of a claim that they were ever 38 times more likely to be infected than White Virginians at any place or point in time.

VDH data also tell us that Latinos accounted for 6,095 hospitalizations, or 12.8% of all hospitalizations. Thus, it is true that they were, over the full two years of the epidemic, about one-third times more likely to be hospitalized than Virginians as a whole. But that’s a tiny fraction of “17 times more likely” — off by a factor of 50.

Here are some more figures that Moreno neglected to mention in her article. According to VDH data, Latinos account for only 986 COVID-related deaths — about 5.2% of all COVID deaths in Virginia. In other words, Hispanics were almost half as likely to die from the virus as other Virginians. When you’re making the argument that Hispanics are the most likely to die, that might be a data point worth mentioning.

Arguably, the most concrete measure one can devise for judging VDH’s performance in the pandemic is how well it administered vaccines to the Hispanic community. And it turns out that 81.2% of all Latinos in Virginia have had a least one dose of the vaccine — compared to 66.6% for Whites and 63.8% for Blacks. Only Asian-Americans have a higher vaccination rate at 90.8%. When you’re criticizing an agency for neglecting an entire ethnic group of people, that, too, might be a point worth mentioning.

The RTD investigation says its five-month investigation found that state leaders allowed the health department to “wither and shrink” for more than 20 years, creating a “severely undermanned and underfunded” public health system. But the RTD’s own data says that per-capita, inflation-adjusted spending on VDH shrank all the way from $86.62 in 2000 to $85.03 in 2020 — a crushing decline of 1.8%. (VDH’s emergency preparedness budget between 2007 and 2020 shrank by 20% inflation-adjusted, the newspaper claims. But it doesn’t tell us what other priorities the agency did increase funding for.)

I’m not saying that VDH is beyond reproach. We’ve argued at Bacon’s Rebellion that much of its COVID-fighting efforts were misguided or misdirected. And the questions the RTD asks are worth asking. But the RTD’s grotesque misuse of statistics has so undermined its credibility that I don’t believe anything it reports in this series. Not. One. Damn. Thing. I can easily check its use and misuse of statistics, but I have no way of verifying the rest of its report, which shows every sign of jamming facts into a pre-determined narrative.

Anyone who uncritically accepts the findings of this series is a fool. Which probably means it is destined for the RTD’s second Pulitzer Prize.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “Torturing Statistics Until They Confess: An RTD Primer”

  1. Timothy Watson Avatar
    Timothy Watson

    The newspaper’s description of a 3,100-employee government agency as “skeletal” is laugh out loud absurd. They also quote the former Health Commissioner on how bad the General Assembly is when it comes to his budget but the paper doesn’t assign blame for chronic failures of basic management (e.g., not even knowing who in your agency can perform translations for agency websites and documents). (For additional absurdity, look at the most recent report from the Auditor of Public Accounts on chronic and repeat internal control failures at the agency.)

    The paper also cites the lack of insurance among “working class Latino[s]”, which is confusing when we had the individual mandate (until the 2019 tax year), subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and the federal exchange, and since January 1, 2019, expanded Medicaid coverage in Virginia.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      VDH has its problems. I’ve noted a few here. James Sherlock has noted a host of them. Seems APA has picked up on some. There she might have a story, but she has to layer it with the racial theme, as the RTD now does with just about everything.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      VDH has its problems. I’ve noted a few here. James Sherlock has noted a host of them. Seems APA has picked up on some. There she might have a story, but she has to layer it with the racial theme, as the RTD now does with just about everything.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      There is no excuse for lack of coverage with the ACA. NONE ZIP ZERO.

      The only problem with the ACA was the failure to dovetail well with the Schedule A deductions and now less so with the Trump standard deduction.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I thought the ACA was pretty much independent of sch A. cost is based on income, reconcile at tax time? Folks who don’t have predictable incomes may end up paying at tax time or get a refund, right?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I have to do this with a series of edits so wait for it…

          The notion is that every household should pay upto some percentage of healthcare costs without assistance. For the Schedule A deduction, it was 10% for under 65 and 7.5% for over 65 who would be on Medicare anyway. For the ACA it is 9.5% (or 9.8 can’t remember). Healthcare premiums are a healthcare cost.

          So, they put this cutoff of 4x Poverty on the ACA. Above that you used the Schedule A, below that you received the “below the line” Tax Credit, paid even if you owed no tax.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I have to do this with a series of edits so wait for it…

          The notion is that every household should pay upto some percentage of healthcare costs without assistance. For the Schedule A deduction, it was 10% for under 65 and 7.5% for over 65 who would be on Medicare anyway. For the ACA it is 9.5% (or 9.8 can’t remember). Healthcare premiums are a healthcare cost.

          So, they put this cutoff of 4x Poverty on the ACA. Above that you used the Schedule A, below that you received the “below the line” Tax Credit, paid to you even if you owed no tax. For a single person household, poverty was $11K or so. For our purposes, let’s say $11.25K so a single person with AGI of $45K is not eligible for the ACA, and $44K is.

          Now to make things fun, the amount of Tax Credit was based on the cost of the Second Lowest Cost Silver Plan in your zip code FOR YOUR AGE. There’s a look up for this on the ACA home page. Let’s say it’s $700/month for a 52-year old in Norfolk. $8400 for the year. I looked it up. It’s really $670.

          A 52-yo making $40K is expected to shoulder $3800 of that $8400, his credit will be $4600. Because his cost is less than $4000 he gets no SchedA deduction for his share of the premium.

          Now, take the same guy making $50K. No ACA for you! But, he can claim $3400 income deduction on SchedA resulting in a 0.22*3400 = $748 ABOVE THE LINE tax savings. He gets 1 month of premium IF HE OWES TAX.

          Pretty bad dovetailing. And it happens abruptly at $45K.

          The Trump standard deduction gives this guy roughly $4K but he has to psychologically apply that to his premium. Of course, the other guy gets it too, so it’s money in his pocket.

          At 7.5% on the SchedA now, it’s better.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Never heard of this. Most folks who get ACA won’t itemize anyhow, right? So you’re discussing folks at the 400% level and higher?

            You can STILL buy ACA but no subsidy over 400% and deduct whatever is left after the 7.5%. Right?

            Not sure I’ve ever ran into someone who gets ACA and itemizes! 😉 but then most I see are either low-income or retired on Medicare.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            On SchedA, you can only take expenses > 7.5% AGI. It used to be > 10% for taxpayers under 65. If you work the numbers, the “hard cutoff” is murder on the guy making $1 more. He goes from 7 months of premiums paid with tax credits to 1.5 months premiums paid by tax deductions. Painful.

            To provide some equity, the medical deduction needs to move to Schedule 1.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            tax credits for ACA? I’m having brain _arts…..

            If we moved medical deductions to Sched 1, they’d have to re-do the whole tax code… Medical costs are huge for many folks.

            but still not getting the “tax credit” idea.
            You don’t get a credit for ACA, you get a refund (when reconciled at tax time), if you paid more for it than you should have and is paid for by the subsidy. No?

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            A person receiving assistence for the ACA receives a “below the line” tax credit, exactly like the Earned Income Credit — EXCEPT — he can apply for it in the beginning of the year using an estimate of his income (done in Oct to Dec of the previous year) and have it paid directly to his insurance company, which lowers HIS premium payment.

            If his income remains below 4x poverty, he will have collected the correct amount and he breaks even. If he earns $1 more than 4xPL then he must repay the advanced credit, but his full premium becomes tax deductible, small consolation at 22 or 24% tax bracket.

            If he chooses to receive less than the full credit in advance and remains under 4xPL, then Uncle Sugar will stroke him a check for the remainder of his credit.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            WHERE on the 1040 is this tax credit? Not sure i’ve ever seen it!

            Yes, on the 400%, cliff, not graduated.

            but not tax deductible unless one itemizes… you know that Medicare premiums are also tax deductible?

            below 400%, you reconcile your income to the premium tax credit and pay the diff or receive a refund if in your favor.

            right?

            so that refund is actually represented as a credit on page 2, is that what you are saying?

            more a refund than a credit… just represented as a credit… right?

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Advance premium credit, line 9 Sched3 plus form 8962. You can take it in advance or as a refund, but if you are making below 4xPL can you really afford to foot the entire $700/month premium and wait for May of the next year for the fully paid credit (not actually a refund)?

            No. Not a refund. A fully paid credit even if you owe $0 in tax.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, they tell you to try to estimate close so the diff to/from you is not big.

            A credit on page 2 – yes and ‘refundable’ but different (in my mind) from other refundable credits where you did not “pay” (and then got back the excess), but instead got a credit for some condition, like child tax or EIC, child care or Ed (which is a ‘hybrid’ – does both)!

            And never really thought much about the 400% and itemization but I can see that’s an issue with higher income folk who don’t have employer-provided ins…. which may well include some Schedule C folks (where the ACA is not deductible as a business expense I believe).

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            This is ALL about the 40-60 million working Americans without bennies. The actually number of households that get caught in the cliff, as you call it, is probably minimal.

            High income earners benefit by lower premiums because hospitals and providers actually collect money from people who would have normally just gone BK, or skipped.

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Not at all. But, it’s a poor patch on a tire with a dozen holes. It would be best if there were a single hard nosed negotiator, like Medicare, and the insurace companies competed by reducing their costs.

          10. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            IF the medical deduction were moved from SchedA to part II of Sched1 AND the limit for amount deductible were tapered from, say 4% AGI at 4xPL to the current 7.5% AGI at, say, 6xPl then the burden of medical expenses would increase with increasing income. Plus remember, SchedA deductions taper off at some income level anyway (~160K married joint?).

            Also, another thing to remember is that those below 4xPL can also receive help with Max out-of-pocket expenses too. The fellow making more than 4xPL must wait for SchedA deduction.

            Helluva burden for making $1 more than 4xPL.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          I have to do this with a series of edits so wait for it…

          The notion is that every household should pay upto some percentage of healthcare costs without assistance. For the Schedule A deduction, it was 10% for under 65 and 7.5% for over 65 who would be on Medicare anyway. For the ACA it is 9.5% (or 9.8 can’t remember). Healthcare premiums are a healthcare cost.

          So, they put this cutoff of 4x Poverty on the ACA. Above that you used the Schedule A, below that you received the “below the line” Tax Credit, paid to you even if you owed no tax. For a single person household, poverty was $11K or so. For our purposes, let’s say $11.25K so a single person with AGI of $45K is not eligible for the ACA, and $44K is.

          Now to make things fun, the amount of Tax Credit was based on the cost of the Second Lowest Cost Silver Plan in your zip code FOR YOUR AGE. There’s a look up for this on the ACA home page. Let’s say it’s $700/month for a 52-year old in Norfolk. $8400 for the year. I looked it up. It’s really $670.

          A 52-yo making $40K is expected to shoulder $3800 of that $8400, his credit will be $4600. Because his cost is less than $4000 he gets no SchedA deduction for his share of the premium.

          Now, take the same guy making $50K. No ACA for you! But, he can claim $3400 income deduction on SchedA resulting in a 0.22*3400 = $748 ABOVE THE LINE tax savings. He gets 1 month of premium IF HE OWES TAX.

          Pretty bad dovetailing. And it happens abruptly at $45K.

          The Trump standard deduction gives this guy roughly $4K but he has to psychologically apply that to his premium. Of course, the other guy gets it too, so it’s money in his pocket.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “…Latinos to being “the most likely to get infected, hospitalized and die” in the during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

    Is that among the vaccinated? Or unvaccinated?.

  3. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    At first glance it looks like the old saw about there being “liars, d*mned liars and statisticians” playing out. But the numbers are so egregiously wrong that does a disservice to liars and statisticians. It does not seem likely that it can be blamed on simple innumeracy either. Malice aforethought does seem to fit. There are a lot of things I have thought the RTD should be ashamed of over the years, but this dwarfs most of them.

    VDH has a plethora of shortcomings. The one that has stuck out furthest to me has been the failure to get better at gathering covid statistics over the roughly two years they have been at it. There seems to be either no learning curve or no awareness that their data collection methodology sucks.

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    The writer obviously must reflect RTD’s hiring standards and the quality of editorial review. Shame. The only thing that she seems to know is that you should torture data until they confess and IF YOU TORTURE THEM TOO MUCH THEY WILL CONFESS TO ANYTHING. Her torture must be similar to enhanced interrogation.

  5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    In Fairfax health district and I assume NoVA we always had outsized Hispanic impact, especially during in the first hard waves, which has perhaps moderated a little bit since Delta and Omicron.

  6. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Total math illiteracy. I spotted that yesterday morning and hooted. Yeah, right, an increased chance of 3,800%.

    Been about a year now since she set me off with similar reporting and faulty math analysis:

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/roving-bands-of-whites-steal-covid-shots/

    I also noted in that one a year ago that she was ignoring the death statistics because they conflicted with her “COVID is racist” narrative.

  7. WayneS Avatar

    But the RTD’s own data says that per-capita, inflation-adjusted spending on VDH shrank all the way from $86.62 in 2000 to $85.03 in 2020 — a crushing decline of 1.8%.

    Adjusted for inflation, the reduction is more like 26.7%.

    EDIT – Oops. The numbers were already inflation adjusted. Duh. I’ll be over in the corner working on my reading comprehension…

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I’m your mohel. Mind if I deduct 1.8% more?

      1. WayneS Avatar

        Sure. I suppose I can spare 0.15 inch. 😉

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Hope you ain’t been swimming in cold water, ’cause we’re gonna hafta adjust for inflation…

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Speaking of torturing, are we still torturing people at Gitmo? Whatever did the SCOTUS decide about admitting evidence and testimony of torturing Abu Zubayduh in Poland? Or how badly did the Ideologue-5 torture the law in the majority opinion?

    1. Actually, the EIT was determined by the DoJ, the White House, and the CIA GC to not be torture — don’t believe the papers. In fact both the Bush and Obama DoJ investigated the CIA’s EIT and it determined thrice [once under Bush and twice by Holder] that no US laws were broken. Finally, no interrogations happened at Gitmo.

  9. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    Nicely done.

Leave a Reply