If it were just a probability paradox, Bell's theorem wouldn't be a thing. You can win certain coordination games more often using quantum correlations than is possible with classical correlations.

That being said, I have complained about specific papers and articles making this exact mistake. For example, explanations of delayed choice eraser experiments are almost always confusing correlation or post-selection for causation ( http://algassert.com/post/1720 ). But Bell tests are not of that form, which is why the first thing you should ask of any proposed interpretation is "How do you deal with Bell tests?".