If that were the case, you wouldn’t see 10-14 year old see a 500% increase and the increase would be closely correlated with when they got the phone, etc.
Also, the article seems to suggest that the absolute incident rate isn’t high - which could mean that we are likely getting better at detection rather than increase in underlying prevalence.
Comments
If that were the case, you wouldn’t see 10-14 year old see a 500% increase and the increase would be closely correlated with when they got the phone, etc.
Also, the article seems to suggest that the absolute incident rate isn’t high - which could mean that we are likely getting better at detection rather than increase in underlying prevalence.