From the Department of You Can’t Make This Up: the face of D.C. pedestrian safety was hurt in a hit-and-run. And not just a little bit:

Stephen Grasty was placed in a neck brace and taken to George Washington University Hospital, where doctors treated him for a long list of injuries, including a broken leg, foot and vertebra. His C6 vertebra was “hanging on a hair,” Shelly Grasty said.

D.C. could be one of the most pedestrian and bicycle-friendly cities in America (just look at these lanes!), but you just can’t get away from out-of-town drivers. (ᔥAxios)

🏀 USA Basketball coach Steve Kerr after FIBA World Cup semifinal loss to Germany:

“This team is very worthy of winning a championship. We just didn’t get it done.”

Hic Rhodus, hic salta, if I may say so.

Also: Go, Serbia! (ᔥBen Golliver)

You don’t need to live in DC to appreciate Martin Weil’s delightful prose about its weather this weekend:

Both days, Friday and Saturday, innocent of haze and atmospheric moisture as they were, seemed to celebrate change and assure us that in coming days, humidity would cease to be a concern.

These two days seemed to embody the exhilaration that comes of seeing blue skies, and nothing but blue skies, everywhere we looked.

Of course, when it comes to weather reporting nothing can beat Kevin Killeen’s story on why February is the worst month.

Kevin Kelley’s 10-year-old list of The Best Magazine Articles Ever has three from The Washington Post that are in the top 25:

• The Peekabo Paradox (2006), about Washington’s preeminent child entertainer, the Great Zucchini, and also about virtue and vice.
• Pearls Before Breakfast (2007), about a master violinist playing a 1713 Stradivari violin incognito in front of L’Enfant Plaza commuters.
• Fatal Distraction: Forgetting a Child in the Backseat of a Car Is a Horrifying Mistake. Is It a Crime? (2009), about, well, that.

The first two in particular are better than anything that will come out this week in any magazine, least of all in the Post. (↬The Technium)

Happy 20th birthday to the Marginal Revolution blog, by the way. I remember the first post I saw — an assorted link list featuring a memorable bear-hiker interaction — but of course it is now impossible to find thanks to MRs rudimentary search. It is a blog, through and through.

There was something particularly irksome about a USA Today article from a few days ago — it prompted 3, count them, three tweets posts Xs from me — and I wanted to figure out what bothered me so. Here is the headline:

Left or right arm: Choosing where to get vaccinated matters, study suggests. Here’s why

No, it’s not the typography, although they should either not have had a full sentence in their headline, or else should have finished it with a full stop. But then they would have lost the chance for the click-baity Here’s why as a prelude to an article ⊕ OK, this can get real confusing real fast since there are two articles I am writing about: the USA Today’s newspaper article, and the research article to which it refers. So, let’s use article for the newspaper, and manuscript for the research article. Because why not? about Real Science™ which — color me astonished — takes a hypothesis-generating study and presents the hypotheses it generated as the final results.

To its credit, the article starts of with a link to the manuscript and the name of the journal where it was published, which is eBioMedicine, part of the proliferating Lancet family, impact factor 11.1. ⊕ Although, you know what they say about impact factors.Good! They also invited an independent researcher to comment. And I am sure that his comments were similar to mine, although of course most of what he said (or more likely wrote in an email) didn’t make it. What ended up on the page were two blurbs about precise vaccination from the director of a Precision Vaccines program. Gasp.

But these are all side attractions. The biggest problem is this: scientists want to compare people who had a two-dose vaccine shot in the same arm to those who had it in different arms; in the manuscript, these were called ipsilateral and contralateral groups. They aren’t randomizing people to one versus the other, ⊕ What they describe as randomization isn’t really so, but that’s a rabbit hole we better not get into. but with these being generally healthy people, and with the participants not having a choice as to where they will get a vaccine, that is not too much of an issue. Then they ask them some questions about vaccine side effects and draw some blood. The questions are about side effects and the blood is to check for “the strength of the immune response”.

Note that they don’t say at the outset that the groups would be different, and how. Would the opposite arm have fewer side effects? Better immune response? If so, in what way? More antibody? Stronger antibody? A different subtype of antibody? Better or worse cellular immunity? Which cell (among dozens)? More cells, stronger cells, or different cells? Or maybe the same side would be better?

The beauty of hypothesis-generating research (for the researcher) is that it doesn’t matter. Whatever you get, you will get it published, sometimes in a double-digit impact factor publication. I’ve sat on many a lab meeting where things like this were proposed and always, always, the comment is that “the results will be interesting whatever they are”. And they are right! But you will not know — cannot know — whether the results you got are based on an underlying physiology, or occurred purely by chance. That is where confirmatory studies come in.

Neither the manuscript nor the article recognize this. Among the many things they looked at, the researchers found two things that were different between the two groups: those who had the vaccine in the same arm had “more” of a certain type of immune cell than the other, and the opposite-arm group had increased expression of a certain marker on yet another type of immune cell. “More” is in quotes because even that is more subjective than it appears — another rabbit hole — but even if true in this sample, it is at best a hypothesis that should lead to another, possibly smaller study, where you focus on these cells, with different operators counting them, and doing additional hypothesis-generating analyses on the side to figure out the why of it, which would lead into yet another confirmatory study… You get the idea.

This is not what the manuscript authors propose. Instead they take their result at face value and concoct a mechanism out of thin air that would explain the result. The journalist then takes the mechanism and presents it as the main research result, the Here’s why of that clickbait headline. There is a high bar for calling anything in science conclusive and the article does have the usual disclaimer that “more research and data is needed”. But the phrase has been repeated so much that it has lost all meaning, something you say to mark yourself as a “believer in science” while with a wink and a nudge you act as if the results were indisputable.

Fortunately, science is a strong-link problem: those who know what they are doing will adjust their beliefs accordingly, and down the line confirm or falsify these preliminary findings. Unfortunately, science doesn’t operate in a vacuum. If its covering of science is indicative, journalism, the fourth estate, is in a hole and digging deeper, taking others with them.

The Atlantic has a short (true!) story about DC politics:

“It’s almost like the government’s imposing its will on its residents,” Trayon White, the D.C. council member for Ward 8, said at the council’s June 6 legislative meeting. He wasn’t talking about a proposed highway, a subway station, a power plant, or—perish the thought—an apartment building. He was talking about trees: specifically, three linden trees on Xenia Street planted a few years ago by D.C.’s Urban Forestry Division. To my surprise, the legislative body of a major American city experiencing escalating homelessness and a serious spike in violent crime dedicated a quarter of its time that day to discussing three trees.

To be clear, he wants the linden trees removed! For context: Ward 8 has a single grocery store which may be closed due to increasing costs of security.

ᔥMarginal Revolution

“The American Board of Internal Medicine is under fire for a ‘maintenance of certification’ requirement. Their own tweet didn’t help.":

Frustration among physicians who feel they are being asked to do increasingly more to prove their competency has been building for years and in recent weeks, boiled over for many. At least 12,000 people have signed a Change.org petition, which is open to anyone. Many added their name after the petition’s organizer resurfaced a July tweet in which ABIM suggested their ongoing certification was so easy, doctors could do it while on vacation.

I have been meaning to write about ABIM’s train wreck ever since I signed the petition, but yet again my proscratination has been awarded: Philadelphia Inquirer says everything I wanted to, and then some. Ding-dong…

Yet again, The Washington Post is not letting facts get in the way of a good story. This time, under the headline “Credit card debt tops $1 trillion, trapping even six-figure earners” they spin a yarn of high-earners keeping their credit card debt for years as “pet rocks”, not having the discipline to pay them off even as the economy is recovering.

Bankrate found that 72 percent of cardholders with credit card debt and annual household incomes of $100,000 or more have been in debt for at least a year. The percentage drops to 70 percent for households with credit card debt and incomes between $80,000 and $99,999; 63 percent for people earning between $50,000 and $79,999; and 53 percent for folks making under $50,000.

But what do they mean by “credit card debt”?

“More people [are] carrying more debt for longer periods of time,” Ted Rossman, a senior industry analyst at Bankrate, said. “The stats that we see from the New York Fed and elsewhere, they don’t distinguish typically between what’s paid in full at the end of the month and what’s not.”

The emphasis is mine, and to be clear this is the gist of their story: more households with incomes >$100,000 carry a balance than those who earn less. But why wouldn’t they? Between credit card rewards (cash back, travel points, etc.) incentivizing use even for daily purchases on one end, and the current ≥4% annual yield on low-risk high-interest savings accounts on the other, why wouldn’t high-earning and — let’s speculate — more financially literate households hold off from paying off the balance to $0 and earn 4% interest on what they held off from paying? There is an important distinction between paying off the balance and paying down to zero which the article never makes.

So, how many households have a revolving credit card balance, the one that actually charges interest? The article has some of that information, burried in the lead and with no context:

Overall, nearly half (47 percent) of credit cardholders have revolving debt, meaning they don’t pay off their balance in full.

They, of course, omit the most important part of the story: proportion of households paying of their balance grouped by income. Because — and I’ll speculate some more — there are two stories here, one of lower-income households saddled with debt that’s not a pet rock but a rock tied to their neck, paying off just enough to stay afloat; and the other of some (many? who knows — they didn’t give that data) higher-income households playing the credit card game, which would account for the first quoted paragraph.

James Fallows had a good story about framing in journalism and this is not a direct example — the boo boos are in the story itself, not the headline and positioning — but it rhymes. Spin it in a way that sells, I guess. Simplify to the point of enough ambiguity to support your preordained, attention-grabbing conclusion. Vague phrases and undefined terms, FTW.

A tornado warning for DC, and another day of 80mph winds. The one las week was a doozy! What was the micro.blog climate emoji, again? 🧨?

Update: It was fine.