Doug64 wrote:Yes, the quoted section is copy-and-pasted from the article. If you think I'm a liar, you don't need to debate me.
Again, please provide proper citation.
The mediation analyses revealed significant indirect links between counties’ pro-Trump voting and infection growth rate via physical distancing (lagged 17–23 days): Bmovement = 0.855, 95% CI [0.622, 1.088] and Bvisitation = 0.896, 95% CI [0.679, 1.113], P < 0.001 (Table 3). Regarding total effects, Trump-leaning counties on average exhibited marginally higher infection growth rates than Clinton-leaning ones between 26 March and 29 May 2020: Bmovement = 0.272, 95% CI [−0.020, 0.564] and Bvisitation = 0.313, 95% CI [0.032, 0.594], P < 0.068 (Total Effects in Table 3 and Supplementary Note 17); however, this would not have been the case if Trump-leaning counties had physically distanced to the same degree as more Clinton-leaning counties. If they had done so, Trump-leaning counties would actually have had lower infection growth rates than Clinton-leaning ones between 26March and 29May 2020: Bmovement=−0.583, 95% CI [−0.915, −0.251] and Bvisitation=−0.582, 95% CI [–0.912, –0.253], P < 0.002 (Direct Effects in Table 3).
The quoted text can be found on the bottom of page 7 of 14 of the following PDF, page 1192 in the journal:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00977-7.pdf
This way, people can read the information in the proper context.
Note that this excerpt also mentions how Trump leaning counties should have lower infection rates and fatality rates because of things like population density, how many people take public transit, how many live in multigenerational homes, et cetera.
Your simple data manipulation in your graph does not look at these other factors, so it is misleading when you focus on ideology as if that were the only factor affecting infection and death rates.