@nytimes, you keep making the same mistake, + you refuse to correct, no matter how many times I write the editors:

You can’t compare test positivity to confirmed cases per population. They differ by a factor of (population size)/(people tested), so 100s, for France. 1/ https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1333735113927106562

That .06% is from 21-27 Nov.

(Confirmed cases 21-27 Nov)/pop for France: * .13% *.

But random sampling showed in low positivity times, UK targeted testing undercounted 2-11-yr-olds by factor of ~2 (smaller for 12-18s). That undercounting factor grows when positivity’s high. 2/

So that .06% should be multiplied by a factor of roughly 2 (possibly higher) and compared to .13%, not 11.1%.

Doesn’t necessarily mean French schools are a “major driver of infection.” But it at least means that .06% figure doesn’t say what @nytimes writers/tweeters think. 3/

Also, this schools discourse is becoming ludicrous.

It’s not as if there is some binary question: “are schools major drivers of infection?” with a universal answer.

That answer totally varies as a function of time and location. 4/

It depends how long schools have been open in the presence of med-high community infection levels.

It depends what *competing* factors are driving infection.

It depends on measures imposed in schools: masks, ventilation, extra space, rotas, percent opting for remote, etc. 5/

And to the combination of education-beat writers and subheadline writers for NYT who’ve been serial offenders in comparing incomparable measures: test positivity, targeted testing per population, random sampling testing—always to minimise school infection—

Please: stop. 6/