More blatant lies from Fox

Mr.Badguy

Mr.Badguy

Super lefty
They know their audience is too STUPID to look up the source they used.

56a07ffd1880ed569df433e30ed79cfda708320d.jpg


d383987219c7db221a298d6e16a74bc500c07c2b.jpg


https://wallethub.com/edu/healthiest-cities/31072
 
I think that all depends on what you measure as healthy.

The wallethub site favors big cities based on their availability of healthcare, restaurants, number of gyms, and established parks. Hardly an accurate measure of the population's health...
Can't say what metrics Bongino used for his story, and they aren't given here.
 
States are commonly compared too.

"To determine the healthiest and unhealthiest states, the organizations used a well-being index to measure health risk across 10 domains, including healthcare access, physical health, community support and food access. The ranking is based on 450,000 surveys collected last year and the study of more than 600 elements of social determinants of health. Read more about the methodology here.

The results from the analysis place three of the five healthiest states in the Northeast, with Massachusetts topping the list for the first time. Mississippi took the last position for the second year in a row.

Here are the states ranked from healthiest to unhealthiest, according to the analysis:"

(I could only get 15 in the screen cap. The rest are here.

049I99g.jpg
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
States are commonly compared too.

"To determine the healthiest and unhealthiest states, the organizations used a well-being index to measure health risk across 10 domains, including healthcare access, physical health, community support and food access. The ranking is based on 450,000 surveys collected last year and the study of more than 600 elements of social determinants of health. Read more about the methodology here.

The results from the analysis place three of the five healthiest states in the Northeast, with Massachusetts topping the list for the first time. Mississippi took the last position for the second year in a row.

Here are the states ranked from healthiest to unhealthiest, according to the analysis:"

(I could only get 15 in the screen cap. The rest are here.

049I99g.jpg
Click to expand...

how do you explain the mass movement from the "healthy" states to the "uinhealthy" states? U Haul has run out of trucks leaving california.
 
The most important statistic for a city is ...are the inhabitants safe from crime?

Without security in their streets and homes, the rest of the metrics are useless.

Cities controlled by the far left Democrat Socialists are not safe for those that live there.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
He used the site I linked. See the "wallethub" text on the map he's displaying?
Click to expand...

I went to the wallethub site. They used four metrics, which I listed, to make their list. I showed these are hardly the be-all, end-all, of what makes a place healthy to live. In fact, I'd call three of them damn near irrelevant (restaurants, gyms, and parks). These are no measure of how healthy a urban population will be. For example, how does a population that eats out all the time--particularly if they regularly get fast food--compared to one that eats home prepared meals? Or, a population that goes to the gym a couple times a week for an hour or two to one that does considerable physical labor, like many rural populations do, daily? Raw land or wilderness versus parks, same thing.

These metrics are meaningless, or nearly so.
 
reagansghost said:
red states suck up more welfare than blue states, by a mile

a fact no cultist can face

ordinarily to be stupid is to be poor
Click to expand...

Actually, welfare costs per person are much higher in blue states, and the number of persons on welfare is generally greater. This is offset by much larger populations in those states. Red states tend to pay less for welfare but in some cases, do have a higher percentage of the population on welfare. However, that said, the three leading states for welfare are, in order,

New Mexico (blue)
New York (blue)
California (blue)
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I went to the wallethub site. They used four metrics, which I listed, to make their list. I showed these are hardly the be-all, end-all, of what makes a place healthy to live. In fact, I'd call three of them damn near irrelevant (restaurants, gyms, and parks). These are no measure of how healthy a urban population will be. For example, how does a population that eats out all the time--particularly if they regularly get fast food--compared to one that eats home prepared meals? Or, a population that goes to the gym a couple times a week for an hour or two to one that does considerable physical labor, like many rural populations do, daily? Raw land or wilderness versus parks, same thing.

These metrics are meaningless, or nearly so.
Click to expand...

My point is that they used a source and said exactly the opposite of it.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
My point is that they used a source and said exactly the opposite of it.
Click to expand...

Ah! I see what you are getting at. I don't know what Bongino said in this piece, but that list isn't the least healthy cities list, unless he's using it somehow to point out its absurdity as a healthy city list. That's not to defend him by any means. On its face, the use of this list was definitely stupid as a source to buttress an argument about unhealthy cities. Of course, I wouldn't have used it at all. It's an absurd listing that does nothing to reinforce an argument for them being the healthiest cities either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top