Rand Paul's anti-mask falsehoods Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a leading voice of opposition to vaccine and mask mandates, an eye doctor who frequently appears on conservative media. On Fox News this week, he claimed that scientific studies show masks don't work as a coronavirus deterrent. "When you talk about the peer-reviewed studies of masks, there was one done in Denmark, showed that it didn't work," Paul said. The claim quickly falls apart, because Paul is twisting what the Danish study says. It cautions that its results were inconclusive and not statistically significant. The researchers actually found masks could reduce coronavirus cases by up to 46 percent in circumstances like Denmark's — or increase infections by up to 23 percent. What Paul didn't mention on Fox News is that most peer-reviewed studies have found that mask-wearing in the community reduces the incidence of covid-19, especially surgical or high-quality masks. "During the pandemic, the scientific evidence has increased," according to a study this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask-wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers' exposure to infection." The senator's false commentary earned Four Pinocchios. Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this email was forwarded to you, sign up here. Did you hear something fact-checkable? Send it here; we'll check it out. Yellen's selective CBO numbers President Biden and top administration officials maintain that the $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" plan to fund climate programs, universal pre-K, tax credits for families with children and other items would be deficit-neutral. Some experts have questioned Biden's assumptions, finding that the plan would add to the deficit. At a Senate hearing this week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the administration's math essentially had been blessed by a neutral arbiter: the Congressional Budget Office. Yellen said the plan "is fully paid for, or even more than fully paid for. And CBO just completed a comprehensive review of it in which they found essentially the same thing." A close read of the CBO's estimates shows they are projecting a $160 billion deficit increase. But Yellen added that they "have indicated that their scoring of that does not take account of behavioral changes that would result from a regime of stricter tax enforcement and Treasury put out its own estimate." As part of his plan, Biden proposes an $80 billion infusion that would double the size of the IRS over the next decade. Presumably more audits and technology upgrades would mean fewer tax cheats could get away with their schemes. But how much additional money would be raised? That's where Yellen runs into trouble. The CBO cannot include an official estimate of the impact because two key guidelines imposed by Congress prevent the scoring of indirect effects (such as people getting more honest because they were afraid of an audit) from spending proposals. The office says any increase in voluntary tax compliance would be modest and highly uncertain. The Treasury Department has grounds to dispute the CBO's analysis. But Yellen cannot pick and choose from parts of the CBO score to claim that the office found the bill to be deficit-neutral. To her credit, when challenged, she acknowledged the difference of opinion with the CBO on modeling behavior effects. But her statements were still worthy of Two Pinocchios. We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @rizzoTK, @AdriUsero) or Facebook. Read about our process and rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | 
Email 
No comments:
Post a Comment