There’s an actual paper trail.
Experts agreed that Trump’s statement is not supported by the data.
Airplanes are small enclosed spaces where social distancing poses special challenges, making this statement an overstatement.
Nothing in this viral meme is accurate. And there are other places to place blame.
When you factor in population size, the U.S. is still behind.
Repurposing one N95 mask 20 times is not the same as having 20 new ones.
Labor unions have called for the agency to issue an emergency standard that would define what steps employers must take to protect their workers from the coronavirus. It has not done that, although it offered guidance that it said does not create a “new legal obligation” for employers.
The former president’s statement highlights a clear difference of opinion that will likely come up often on the campaign trail.
Capitol Hill’s guarantee does not pertain to many “essential” workers.
Travel restrictions came after the coronavirus had reached the U.S.
The president’s statement frames the data in a way that doesn’t accurately represent the status of the American response to COVID-19.
Public health professionals dismissed the president’s claims that the spread of the coronavirus, in particular, and the threat of a pandemic, in general, snuck up on us as being “simply astonishing” and “simply untrue.”
Biden’s statement leaves out context about how countries decided on which test they’d use to identify the presence of the coronavirus.
There are important distinctions between how insurance companies will cover the test and the treatment. This makes the president’s statement an exaggeration, at best.
The process is not as simple as calling your doctor or pharmacy, saying you want to be tested for COVID-19 and getting it done. Clinicians decide whether patients meet the criteria to warrant it. Circumstances are further complicated because tests are in short supply.
The vice president’s remarks are more proof that health care is complicated.
Kaiser Health News gives readers a chance to comment on a recent batch of stories.
The research exaggerates potential savings, cherry-picks evidence and downplays some of the potential trade-offs.
This claim ‘wouldn’t pass muster’ in a first-year statistics class.
There was a time when Bloomberg’s criticism was consistent.