RT @NateSilver538@twitter.com
Good examples of bad COVID takes driving out accurate/fair/sane ones on Twitter. There are some batshit crazy takes on here, occasionally by people with MD or MPH in their titles, but they're a nasty crew to argue with so people with more accurate information give up. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1592218335864815617
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1592245925803855874
@fitterhappierAJ Nate's call for 2016 was good: he said Trump had a 1/3 chance of winning. 1/3 chances come up one of of three times, so it was no surprise to those us following 538 and who understand how chance works (I'm a quantum physicist and Bayesian epistemologist, so chance is pretty much what I do for a living) that Trump won. Roll a die. Are you shocked when a 1 or 2 comes up? Because that has the same chance as Trump winning in 2016 according to Nate. He's gone off the rails since.
@tjradcliffe @fitterhappierAJ Yep.
Also, I haven't noticed Nate off the rails. Is he disagreeing with you somewhere?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nate-silver-predicts-close-2016-presidential-race/story?id=43329272
@tjradcliffe @fitterhappierAJ
Remote school vs. in person seems to be his opinion that got the most attention. While I was happy my daughter had remote school, the educational argument on the other side was at least real. He always gets comments about "not following the data", but 9 times out of 10, I don't see it.