One of the points of OP to be that aggregations like the CDC data tracker are not themselves primary source material. Like, the chain goes “person provides sample” → “sample gets processed” → “result gets recorded locally” → “result gets aggregated nationally”, and each of those steps feels like it has some possibility for error or bias or whatever. That CNN is even further from ground seems useful to know, but doesn’t tell us how connected the CDC is.
Agreed (which is why I noted that county data could be more valuable than aggregated CDC data, and that nuance has the potential to be lost with every aggregation), and I spent a good 30 minutes after writing this comment asking myself if there is a better term than “primary source,” which I probably used incorrectly above.
That said, it’s fair to note that I didn’t actually answer the question asked, because I don’t know how to determine the reliability of any given number (or any given source providing any given number). How are other people doing this?
One of the points of OP to be that aggregations like the CDC data tracker are not themselves primary source material. Like, the chain goes “person provides sample” → “sample gets processed” → “result gets recorded locally” → “result gets aggregated nationally”, and each of those steps feels like it has some possibility for error or bias or whatever. That CNN is even further from ground seems useful to know, but doesn’t tell us how connected the CDC is.
Agreed (which is why I noted that county data could be more valuable than aggregated CDC data, and that nuance has the potential to be lost with every aggregation), and I spent a good 30 minutes after writing this comment asking myself if there is a better term than “primary source,” which I probably used incorrectly above.
That said, it’s fair to note that I didn’t actually answer the question asked, because I don’t know how to determine the reliability of any given number (or any given source providing any given number). How are other people doing this?