copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2009-10-16): Persons using assistive technology might not be able to fully access information in this file. For assistance, please send e-mail to: mmwrq@cdc.gov. Type 508 Accommodation and the title of the report in the subject line of e-mail. [...] In all four states, lower prevalences were observed consistently for the youngest and oldest groups, compared with the middle two age groups. The lower prevalences for males aged 5--9 years (born during 1998--2002) might reflect diagnostic delays previously reported by MD STARnet (4). The case classification used by MD STARnet rigorously defines probable or definite cases, but might not identify all cases of DBMD. This might be especially true for males aged 20--24 years (born during 1983--1987) because widespread use of genetic diagnostic tests did not begin until the early 1990s. Additionally, this group has the lowest survival. [...] Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr)
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2020-05-11): George Borrello stated on May 11, 2020 in a press release: "Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state." American Automobile Association stated on April 27, 2020 in a news report: "New York is one of only 12 states where the average gallon of gas costs more than $2.00." Lovely Warren stated on April 8, 2020 in a press conference: Racial comparisons on coronavirus statistics in Monroe County, N.Y., show that the impact on minorities is "basically on par, a little bit up, from the population numbers," meaning that "we don’t see that disparity as much here." George Borrello stated on May 11, 2020 in a press release: "Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state."
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2020-08-17): Average Infection Rate Has Been 1 Percent or Lower Since June 0.71 Percent of Yesterday's COVID-19 Tests were Positive— Lowest Daily Positivity Rate Since Beginning of Crisis 6 COVID-19 Deaths in New York State Yesterday [...] "Right now, New York has one of the lowest infection rates in the country, and New York State's regions and New York City's boroughs are all basically consistent, so on the all the numbers it's good news, and I congratulate New Yorkers for doing what people said couldn't be done," Governor Cuomo said. "We were told that we couldn't reduce the infection rate, that we would overburden our hospital system and that we'd cause it to collapse, but by banding together in the face of this unprecedented threat, New Yorkers proved those expectations wrong. Going forward, we need to protect the progress, which New Yorkers can do by wearing masks, socially distancing and washing their hands, and local governments can do by enforcing state guidance." [...] Right now, New York has one of the lowest infection rates in the country, and New York State's regions and New York City's boroughs are all basically consistent, so on the all the numbers it's good news.
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2014-11-07): - The rate of ED visits due to motor vehicle traffic-related motorcyclist injuries have remained consistent, increasing from 21.8 visits per 100,000 residents in 2005 to 23.0 in 2013. In 2014 the rate decreased to 22.1. [...] - The rate of deaths due to motor vehicle traffic-related pedestrian injuries has remained fairly consistent with a high of 2.0 deaths per 100,000 New Yorkers in 2001 and a low of 1.4 deaths per 100,000 in 2007-2009 and 2014. [...] - The rate of deaths due to motor vehicle traffic-related injuries where role of the injured person is unspecified has remained consistent with a high of 2.6 deaths per 100,000 New Yorkers in 2002, and a low of 1.4 deaths per 100,000 in 2014.
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2024-08-26): - Albany County - Allegany County - Broome County - Cattaraugus County - Cayuga County - Chautauqua County - Chemung County - Chenango County - Clinton County - Columbia County - Cortland County - Delaware County - Dutchess County - Erie County - Essex County - Franklin County - Fulton County - Genesee County - Greene County - Hamilton County - Herkimer County - Jefferson County - Lewis County - Livingston County - Madison County - Monroe County - Montgomery County - Nassau County - New York City - Niagara County - Oneida County - Onondaga County - Ontario County - Orange County - Orleans County - Oswego County - Otsego County - Putnam County - Rensselaer County - Rockland County - St. Lawrence County - Saratoga County - Schenectady County - Schoharie County - Schuyler County - Seneca County - Steuben County - Suffolk County - Sullivan County - Tioga County - Tompkins County - Ulster County - Warren County - Washington County - Wayne County - Westchester County - Wyoming County - Yates County
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2024-08-25): The State of New York sometimes defines the WNY region as including just five counties: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, and Niagara. The state's Empire State Development Corporation and state health authorities have both mapped the region this way.[1] The state has also used this regional boundary to set policy during the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] [...] The Chautauqua–Allegheny Region (also known as Southwestern New York or the Western Southern Tier) comprises Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Allegany counties. The region is mountainous. The largest urban center is Jamestown, and Lake Chautauqua and Allegany State Park are major geographical features. [...] - Allegany County, population 48,357 - Cattaraugus County, population 79,458 - Chautauqua County, population 133,539 - Chemung County, population 88,911 - Erie County, population 954,236 - Genesee County, population 59,977 - Livingston County, population 64,810 - Monroe County, population 759,443 - Niagara County, population 215,124 - Ontario County, population 108,519 - Orleans County, population 42,836 - Schuyler County, population 18,514 - Seneca County, population 35,305 - Steuben County, population 99,063 - Wayne County, population 92,962 - Wyoming County, population 41,892 - Yates County, population 25,344
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2024-09-01): A principal driver behind the rising demand for workers in the health care and social assistance field in Western New York is the growing senior citizen population in the region’s five counties (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie and Niagara). According to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program, there were an estimated 286,365 people aged 65 and older living in Western New York in 2023. This group accounted for more than one in five (20.4%) members of the Western New York population last year. This figure is up sharply from 2010, when it stood at 15.8%. [...] Education and health services (+10,800) [...] Education and health services (+1,800)
Claim: “Infection rates in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties have consistently been among the lowest in the state.” (George Borrello, 2020-05-11)
Evidence (2020-01-01): Open Forum Infect Dis 2017 ; [...] Clin Infect Dis 2011 ; [...] Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Niagara, Orleans, Genesee, Wyoming *Based on NYS DOH Population Health Improvement Program Regional Map. https://www.health.ny.gov/community/programs/population_health_improvement/docs/contact_sheet.pdf.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-08-25): Surveys have shown that the vast majority of economists believe tariffs’ negative impacts — which include higher costs for consumers — consistently outweigh the benefits. Academic and think tank studies bolster those views.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2021-01-19): Raise tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. Trump levied tariffs on imports from countries that he believed were cheating the U.S., including but not limited to China. Trump placed tariffs on solar panels, washing machines, steel and aluminum, and billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. As of January 2020, the U.S. had imposed tariffs on 16.8% of imported goods, measured as a share of the value of all U.S. imports in 2017, the year before the first Trump tariffs were imposed.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-02-12): There are geopolitical considerations, too: Companies want to rely less on China and worry about a military conflict arising between China and Taiwan, a noted chip manufacturing hub. So, to diversify their manufacturing, these companies may consider making chips in the U.S.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2023-09-27): Trump’s overall approach on tariffs backfired because U.S. consumers and companies paid the lion’s share of the increase, Congressional Research Service research found. [...] Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor and economics at the Center for Automotive Research, told Reuters in October 2020 that the tariffs hurt the industry. GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler, now part of Stellantis, all closed plants in Michigan since 2018, the year the tariffs were imposed. It cost GM and Ford $1 billion each for increased steel costs in 2018. We found accumulating evidence that Trump’s overall tariff strategy backfired. A December 2020 summary from the Congressional Research Service, Congress’ nonpartisan policy arm, said most studies "suggest a negative overall effect on U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the tariffs" and that most studies found U.S. consumers and companies "bore nearly the entire increased costs associated with the tariffs."
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-09-04): The Harris campaign is more forthright about the cost of tariffs to the average consumer, although its specific estimates about the magnitude of the cost of tariffs Trump has proposed for the future — almost $4,000 a year on middle class households — can be questioned. [...] The household-level effect of tariffs also depends on what a consumer buys. Consider the effect of tariffs on washing machines imposed by Trump (and allowed to expire by Biden) and the 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles Biden announced in May. [...] Overall, manufacturers passed through more than 100% of the tariff cost to consumers, thanks to the lack of competition and the price increase on dryers. American consumers lost about $1.55 billion because of the washing machine tariffs, the authors found.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-08-22): There’s wide agreement that the tariff would affect consumers. "Trump's proposal would be very harmful to household budgets," said Daniel Mitchell, an independent libertarian economist. [...] Previously, a Republican National Committee spokesperson pointed PolitiFact to a study by Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group of manufacturers and labor unions that generally supports higher tariffs. The study says a 10% tariff "would stimulate domestic production and raise economic growth to produce a 5.7% increase in real income for the average American household." The proposed tariff policy changes’ possible effect on middle-income consumers varies widely depending on the study. (It would also vary based on a family’s economic circumstances.)
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2019-11-18): Most mainstream economists, however, argue that consumers are the primary victims of tariffs. Tariffs on consumer products hit customers directly, while tariffs on raw materials can produce delays or price spikes that spiral across the economy, interrupting complex and time-sensitive supply chains. Any slowdown in the supply chain could mean layoffs for producers and a hit to the broader U.S. economy. [...] When the tariff is small, an importer may elect to keep its prices stable rather than pass the tariff cost along to the consumer. But when tariffs are high enough, firms will inevitably pass on some or all of the increase to U.S. consumers, said Monica de Bolle, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. [...] As we’ve noted, a March 2019 study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, a London-based think tank, concluded that, using standard economic methods, "the full incidence of the tariff falls on domestic consumers, with a reduction in U.S. real income of $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018."
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-08-25): Sen. J.D. Vance defended former President Donald Trump’s tariff policy, saying it penalizes importers who undercut American workers, including with "slave labor," not consumers. [...] When asked whether he acknowledges that tariffs cost consumers money, he said "no, I don’t," arguing that making imports more expensive has a "dynamic" effect by encouraging producers to make their goods instead in the U.S. and avoid the tariffs. "I think economists really disagree about the effects of tariffs. Because there can be a dynamic effect, right? So what some economists will say is what you just said, that it will actually raise costs for consumers. But what other people say, and I think the record supports this other view, is that it causes this dynamic effect where more jobs come into the country," he said.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-08-25): If Your Time is short - Surveys have shown that the vast majority of economists believe tariffs’ negative impacts — which include higher costs for consumers — consistently outweigh the benefits. Academic and think tank studies bolster those views. [...] Most economists disagree with this idea. Our previous review of academic studies of real-world tariffs concluded that consumers ultimately shoulder most of the burden in higher prices for goods, and the burden outweighs tariffs’ economic benefits. [...] The majority of economists believe the negative impacts from tariffs, including higher costs, consistently outweigh the benefits for consumers. Academic and think tank studies on tariffs’ effects bolster the economists’ views.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-09-03): Fact check: Vance says consumers are 'better off' under tariffs [...] Most economists disagree with this idea. Our previous review of academic studies of real-world tariffs concluded that consumers ultimately shoulder most of the burden in higher prices for goods, and the burden outweighs tariffs’ economic benefits. [...] Are consumers "much better off" after tariffs, as Vance said?
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2001-03-01): Reducing import tariffs as part of an overall program of trade liberalization is a major policy challenge currently facing many developing countries. Two concerns should be carefully addressed. First, tariff reduction should not lead to unintended changes in the relative rates of effective protection across sectors. One simple way of ensuring that unintended consequences do not occur would be to reduce all nominal tariff rates by the same proportion whenever such rates need to be changed. Second, nominal tariff reductions are likely to entail short-term revenue loss. This loss can be avoided through a clear-cut strategy in which separate compensatory measures are considered in sequence: first reducing the scope of tariff exemptions in the existing system, then compensating for the tariff reductions on excisable imports by a commensurate increase in their excise rates, and finally adjusting the rate of the general consumption tax (such as the VAT) to meet remaining revenue needs.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-08-29): During the interview, host Kristen Welker raised concerns that the tariffs imposed during Trump's first term cost Americans nearly $80 billion, as companies passed on the extra costs to consumers through higher prices for imported goods. Vance, however, firmly rejected this idea, arguing that the real target of the tariffs wasn't American consumers but foreign importers who rely on cheap labor to undercut U.S. workers. [...] However, Vance’s defense of Trump’s tariffs isn’t without opposition. Many economists and trade experts argue that tariffs, in reality, do impose significant costs on American consumers. Studies have shown that the tariffs enacted by Trump effectively acted as a tax on American households, raising the prices of imported goods, including everyday essentials like food, appliances and clothing. [...] Vance acknowledged that some economists believe tariffs lead to higher prices for consumers, but he argued that this view overlooks the positive effects of these policies. He suggested that making imports more expensive encourages companies to manufacture goods domestically, which, in turn, creates jobs and boosts wages.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2023-04-27): We know the problems we need to solve today: Creating diversified and resilient supply chains. Mobilizing public and private investment for a just clean energy transition and sustainable economic growth. Creating good jobs along the way, family-supporting jobs. Ensuring trust, safety, and openness in our digital infrastructure. Stopping a race-to-the-bottom in corporate taxation. Enhancing protections for labor and the environment. Tackling corruption. That is a different set of fundamental priorities than simply bringing down tariffs. [...] Simply put: In today’s world, trade policy needs to be about more than tariff reduction, and trade policy needs to be fully integrated into our economic strategy, at home and abroad.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2024-08-26): Welker pushed back more, asking him roughly the same question again: "Do you acknowledge that imposing more tariffs will ultimately cost consumers?" [...] Vance ultimately responded with a no. "I think economists really disagree about the effects of tariffs. Because there can be a dynamic effect, right? So what some economists will say is what you just said, that it will actually raise costs for consumers. But what other people say, and I think the record supports this other view, is that it causes this dynamic effect where more jobs come into the country. [...] Vance is just totally wrong on the merits. If we get more tariffs, it's American consumers who will have to bear the consequences—after suffering through several years of high inflation that have already taken a big chunk out of their budgets.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2022-11-21): Tariffs Undermine Jobs. If tariffs remain in place, these small changes in costs and prices become permanent and begin to spread. Why? Take the example of steel: The U.S. produces most of the steel we consume, but when we impose a tariff on imported steel, domestic producers of steel see an opportunity to raise their own prices. As a result, the cost of producing things made with steel in the U.S. increases. This is true in any production chain affected by tariffs: Shoes become more expensive to produce if we levy a tariff on leather; grocery stores will see their costs increase if we levy tariffs on fresh produce; books and newspapers become costlier to produce if we tax imports of paper. In markets where substitutes are not readily available – avocados in winter, for example, or gasoline – consumers will see prices rise almost in lockstep with the tariff. [...] This is the ultimate lesson of our country’s last bold experiment in protectionism: Tariffs, even more than other forms of taxation or government interference in the marketplace, create dysfunctional incentives that distort costs and prices throughout the economy. They tend to shore up yesterday’s industries at the expense of tomorrow’s industries, an illusion of "protection" from an underlying economic reality that cannot be denied forever.
Claim: “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you're ultimately much better off.” (J.D. Vance, 2024-08-25)
Evidence (2021-01-21): Through higher wages, trade puts more money in the pockets of Canadians to spend on necessities like food, shelter, and government services like education and healthcare or on discretionary items like flat-screen TVs and the occasional vacation. Because trade encourages companies and workers to specialize in what they do best, to innovate, and to grow large by serving global markets, the productivity of firms improves, which in turn drives up wages for workers and increases Canada’s prosperity. The end result is increased standards of living. [...] Overall, an open trade policy leads to higher wages for employees, lower prices and greater variety for consumers, and greater productivity in business operations through less costly inputs and more efficient and longer production runs. The increased level of competition also creates an environment in which firms are facing incentives to innovate and control costs—to the benefit of all Canadians.