Coronavirus Information...who do you trust?

[GMDino]

(08-26-2021, 03:44 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'd love for someone to break down how that poll was done.  How many people did they survey?  Where did they survey for "urban," "suburban", and "rural?"  How many people refused to answer? 

Right off the bat, looking at it at first glance, something is SCREAMING to me that this is an absolute nonsense and garbage poll... Why did they poll for Evangeliical Christians but no other religions?  I'm not exactly sure what the purpose is of having so many different categories is if you're trying to draw a meaningful conclusion but ok, I'll play along, they wanted religion.  Except they only did one, which means it really doesn't tell us much.

Why didn't they poll Muslims?  Or Jews?  Or Hindus? Or Budhists?  I mean, seriously, what does this tell us?  Why would you only poll one specific religion when you have a chart of 25 categories?

I see they polled White people.  I see they polled Black people.  I see the polled Hispanic people.  Why didn't they poll Asian people?  What about Native Americans or Pacific Islanders?  Again, they've taken the time to poll for TWENTY-FIVE different categories.    But they decided to just leave out these groups.

Maybe it's just me, but this poll is coming off as extremely fishy.  Maybe there was actually more to it and someone chose to present it this way.  But right now I have to say this comes across as complete agenda driven BS, probably with an embarrassingly low sample size.  

All I read was "I don't believe it...I don't have any proof of anything to refute it...but I don't like it because I disagree with it." 

I mean you COULD have searched for the information to answer your own "questions" about the the results...but then you might find something that disagrees with your preset point of view.

Oh well.  Thanks anyway.

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-26-2021, 03:53 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Or they decided to ask all those other groups but didn't or couldn't get a large enough pool to answer and so the results were meaningless to the overall point of the survey.

I would think/hope they would realize that if you were only able to get answers from one group they might want to remove that category (religion) from the poll.  Having Evangelicals on there serves no purpose without other groups to compare.

Imgaine this was the poll, but we'll change up religion and race.

-Christian
-Muslim
-Jewish
-Hindu
-Budhist
-College educated
-No college
-White
-Urban
-Rural
-Surburban
-Over 65
-Under 65

Seeing "white" there kind of sticks out like a sore thumb does it not?  Why is it on there?  Would you say "Well maybe they couldn't get any other races to participate" or would you think that maybe they should just remove race from the study?


Also, I find the line of this questioning hilarious given how a number of of unvaccinated will respond with "none of your business" to even the initial question of vaccination.  Then to follow it up with:  And sir/ma'am, what race are you?  Ok, did you go to college?  And Do you have insurance?  How old are you? Do you worship Jesus Christ specifically?

[BigPapaKain]

(08-26-2021, 04:19 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I would think/hope they would realize that if you were only able to get answers from one group they might want to remove that category (religion) from the poll.  Having Evangelicals on there serves no purpose without other groups to compare.

Imgaine this was the poll, but we'll change up religion and race.

-Christian
-Muslim
-Jewish
-Hindu
-Budhist
-College educated
-No college
-White
-Urban
-Rural
-Surburban
-Over 65
-Under 65

Seeing "white" there kind of sticks out like a sore thumb does it not?  Why is it on there?  Would you say "Well maybe they couldn't get any other races to participate" or would you think that maybe they should just remove race from the study?


Also, I find the line of this questioning hilarious given how a number of of unvaccinated will respond with "none of your business" to even the initial question of vaccination.  Then to follow it up with:  And sir/ma'am, what race are you?  Ok, did you go to college?  And Do you have insurance?  How old are you? Do you worship Jesus Christ specifically?

Well it's the WaPo, so I'm not denying they had an agenda. But Dino did go ahead and give you an answer to your qualms about the research used. 

[GMDino]

(08-26-2021, 04:19 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I would think any researcher worth their salt would realize that if you were only able to get answers from one group you might want to remove that category (religion) from the poll.  Having Evangelicals on there serves no purpose without other groups to compare.

Imgaine this was the poll, but we'll change up religion and race.

-Christian
-Muslim
-Jewish
-Hindu
-Budhist
-College educated
-No college
-White
-Urban
-Rural
-Surburban
-Over 65
-Under 65

Seeing "white" there kind of sticks out like a sore thumb does it not?  Why is it on there?  Would you say "Well maybe they couldn't get any other races to participate" or would you think that maybe they should just remove race from the study?


Also, I find the line of this questioning hilarious given how a number of of unvaccinated will respond with "none of your business" to even the initial question of vaccination.  Then to follow it up with:  And sir/ma'am, what race are you?  Ok, did you go to college?  And Do you have insurance?  How old are you? Do you worship Jesus Christ specifically?

Are you saying the numbers are wrong just huffy because they weren't compared to other religions?  Did you look for the information or just complain?

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-26-2021, 04:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: All I read was "I don't believe it...I don't have any proof of anything to refute it...but I don't like it because I disagree with it." 

I mean you COULD have searched for the information to answer your own "questions" about the the results...but then you might find something that disagrees with your preset point of view.

Oh well.  Thanks anyway.

What exactly do you think my "preset point of view" is exactly?  What am I trying to ignore?  I've already seen most of these numbers in other places.

All I asked is how this partiuclar poll was conducted (how many people did they poll, where did the poll, who they did poll?) and why certain groups were included and certain groups were not (Christians were included, other religions were not.  Whites, Blacks and Hispanics were included, while Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders were not)

Your link you've provided, which apparently I should have went and found for myself, answers none of these questions.

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-26-2021, 04:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: Are you saying the numbers are wrong just huffy because they weren't compared to other religions?  Did you look for the information or just complain?

I really don't know why this is that hard to understand.  I never said any number was wrong.  I questioned the need for one particular religion to be included, and for 3 population groups to be ignored (Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander).  That doesn't mean I think the numbers shown are wrong, it means I'm questioning what conclusions are to be drawn with such a strange grouping of incomplete categories.

I've seen these numbers elsewhere.  I've seen them by race. I've seen them by political party.  And I've seen them by age.  This particular poll just struck me as odd.  What's now even more odd is how defensive you're getting about it.

[BigPapaKain]

Damn, it really didn't have anything extra in that link did it?

I'll be taking my foot out of my mouth right quick.

I'm wondering if maybe they told people what the poll was and asked them to define themselves?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-26-2021, 04:40 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I really don't know why this is that hard to understand.  I never said any number was wrong.  I questioned the need for one particular religion to be included, and for 3 population groups to be ignored (Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander).  That doesn't mean I think the numbers shown are wrong, it means I'm questioning what conclusions are to be drawn with such a strange grouping of incomplete categories.

I've seen these numbers elsewhere.  I've seen them by race. I've seen them by political party.  And I've seen them by age.  This particular poll just struck me as odd.  What's now even more odd is how defensive you're getting about it.

Well part of that evangelicals are black people for sure.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2021, 04:40 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I really don't know why this is that hard to understand.  I never said any number was wrong.  I questioned the need for one particular religion to be included, and for 3 population groups to be ignored (Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander).  That doesn't mean I think the numbers shown are wrong, it means I'm questioning what conclusions are to be drawn with such a strange grouping of incomplete categories.

I've seen these numbers elsewhere.  I've seen them by race. I've seen them by political party.  And I've seen them by age.  This particular poll just struck me as odd.  What's now even more odd is how defensive you're getting about it.

It's not hard to understand.  You've seen the numbers and you aren't saying they are wrong you just don't like them.

And you don't like that this one asked evangelicals and didn't ask muslims because...reasons.

Again you aren't arguing the number are wrong so I'm not sure why you think the poll is "odd" or "fishy" or why you think I'm being "defensive" for saying exactly what you said.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2021, 04:33 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: What exactly do you think my "preset point of view" is exactly?  What am I trying to ignore?  I've already seen most of these numbers in other places.

All I asked is how this partiuclar poll was conducted (how many people did they poll, where did the poll, who they did poll?) and why certain groups were included and certain groups were not (Christians were included, other religions were not.  Whites, Blacks and Hispanics were included, while Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders were not)

Your link you've provided, which apparently I should have went and found for myself, answers none of these questions.

Or, you know, you could "find it yourself" by clicking around the site that put out the data.

Again...you think the numbers "aren't wrong" but you don't like how the poll was done (without looking to see how it was done).  If the numbers "aren't wrong" what's the *****?  I'm sure there are other polls with those other groups.  And the poll numbers would still be "not wrong".

How you guys can agree that something is right and still find a way to think it is "fishy" or "odd" is endlessly amsuing.

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-26-2021, 06:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, you know, you could "find it yourself" by clicking around the site that put out the data.

Again...you think the numbers "aren't wrong" but you don't like how the poll was done (without looking to see how it was done).  If the numbers "aren't wrong" what's the *****?  I'm sure there are other polls with those other groups.  And the poll numbers would still be "not wrong".

How you guys can agree that something is right and still find a way to think it is "fishy" or "odd" is endlessly amsuing.

Fwiw, I did "click around" the website and didn't find many answers to my questions.

You keep assuming I have a problem with the numbers; I don't.  I've seen similar numbers elsewhere and have taken no exception.  My problem with this particular poll is it seems to be framed rather strangely and lacks a ton or relevant info.

Why would you account for race as a standalone category (white, black, hispanic) and then also list "white republican" and "white democrat" but not the others (black republican and black democrat, hispanic republican and hispanic democrat...).  To me that seems incredibly odd.  Either seperate race, or include it in each sub-category. 

Why would you remove other races from the conversation entirely?  How do you not poll Asians, Native-Americans and Pacific Islanders?

Why would you only poll Christians?  Again, I'm looking for an explantion as to the conclusion meant to be drawn here because I don't see one.  What is the point of only including one religious group in a poll that has 25 categories?

Like I said, the groupings seem flawed if not unneeded or unecessary.  And without knowledge of how many people were polled, where they were polled, and who vetted them, it's hard to take this seriously.  I'm sorry if this offends you.  I didn't realize someone that didn't work for the polling company would take these critiques so personally.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2021, 07:55 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, I did "click around" the website and didn't find many answers to my questions.

You keep assuming I have a problem with the numbers; I don't.  I've seen similar numbers elsewhere and have taken no exception.  My problem with this particular poll is it seems to be framed rather strangely and lacks a ton or relevant info.

Why would you account for race as a standalone category (white, black, hispanic) and then also list "white republican" and "white democrat" but not the others (black republican and black democrat, hispanic republican and hispanic democrat...).  To me that seems incredibly odd.  Either seperate race, or include it in each sub-category. 

Why would you remove other races from the conversation entirely?  How do you not poll Asians, Native-Americans and Pacific Islanders?

Why would you only poll Christians?  Again, I'm looking for an explantion as to the conclusion meant to be drawn here because I don't see one.  What is the point of only including one religious group in a poll that has 25 categories?

Like I said, the groupings seem flawed if not unneeded or unecessary.  And without knowledge of how many people were polled, where they were polled, and who vetted them, it's hard to take this seriously.  I'm sorry if this offends you.  I didn't realize someone that didn't work for the polling company would take these critiques so personally.

Last part first I'm not offended.  I'm literally laughing.

What I keep reading is you saying:  

"I agree with these numbers....but I noticed they didn't poll Rastafarians.  that makes me doubt the entire thing."
"I'm not saying the numbers are wrong...but why not ask the Inuit people?  What make that distinction?!?!"
"Sure the numbers match others I've seen and agree with...but without knowing exactly how THIS poll was done I wonder how they got the same numbers I already acknowledged and agree with!!"

Like I said that you agree with it and even say they match others you have seen (that I assume you also agree with) but continue to think it is "fishy" or "odd" becuase you don't like that it doesn't cover every group YOU want it too is endlessly amusing to me.

Keep breaking it down buddy!

[*michaelsean*]

(08-26-2021, 07:55 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, I did "click around" the website and didn't find many answers to my questions.

You keep assuming I have a problem with the numbers; I don't.  I've seen similar numbers elsewhere and have taken no exception.  My problem with this particular poll is it seems to be framed rather strangely and lacks a ton or relevant info.

Why would you account for race as a standalone category (white, black, hispanic) and then also list "white republican" and "white democrat" but not the others (black republican and black democrat, hispanic republican and hispanic democrat...).  To me that seems incredibly odd.  Either seperate race, or include it in each sub-category. 

Why would you remove other races from the conversation entirely?  How do you not poll Asians, Native-Americans and Pacific Islanders?

Why would you only poll Christians?  Again, I'm looking for an explantion as to the conclusion meant to be drawn here because I don't see one.  What is the point of only including one religious group in a poll that has 25 categories?

Like I said, the groupings seem flawed if not unneeded or unecessary.  And without knowledge of how many people were polled, where they were polled, and who vetted them, it's hard to take this seriously.  I'm sorry if this offends you.  I didn't realize someone that didn't work for the polling company would take these critiques so personally.

Not just Christians, but a very specific group of Christians. It definitely looks like some sort of agenda when you see things like that.

[GMDino]

While the discussion still seems to be that the numbers people agree are right but want to complain about because it highlighted one group versus another I thought I'd get us back on track with some Coronavirus discussion.

We went with friends to see a band last night at an outdoor venue and between sets I found myself speaking with a friend of a friend.  She was talking to another lady about the vaccine and she seemed more informed than the average person.  The lady she was speaking to was asking all kinds of questions because someone in her family was sending all kinds of anti-vax videos and articles and she was afraid that she might die because she had both her doses.

So the woman I ended up talking to made it pretty clear:  Published peer reviewed studies matter.  YouTube videos and articles on the web do not...unless they have been published studies that have been peer reviewed and agreed upon. (I'm summing up a much longer, involved explanation.)

As the two of got to talking about how we knew the mutual friend and whatnot I asked what she did for a living and it turns out she works for the CDC.  And her job is to review the various published articles for them in some sort of local capacity. (Again, summing up.  There was more to her job.)

It was interesting to actually hear from someone who looks at these things and could clearly articulate the facts vs the politics.  

So go get the vaccine.

[*Nately120*]

(08-27-2021, 11:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not just Christians, but a very specific group of Christians. It definitely looks like some sort of agenda when you see things like that.

Well if Christians could all get along they could be polled as a single entity. 

[GMDino]

Here's another one...hopefully this covers enough groups...lol.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/



Same people as above with the numbers y'all agreed with but didn't like cause reasons.

Took like 30 seconds to find it.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2021, 11:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not just Christians, but a very specific group of Christians. It definitely looks like some sort of agenda when you see things like that.

There doesn't have to be an agenda other than republicans and Evangelical Christians are the two largest groups resisting, if not outright fighting against, the vaccines.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-some-white-evangelical-republicans-are-so-opposed-to-the-covid-19-vaccine/

Quote:In the race to get Americans vaccinated, two groups are commanding a lot of attention: Republicans and white evangelicals. Both are less likely to have been vaccinated already and more likely to refuse vaccination altogether.


But it’s the overlap between white Republicans and white evangelicals that is especially telling, as white evangelical Republicans are among the most likely groups in the U.S. to refuse vaccination. According to a June survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, where I’m the research director, and the Interfaith Youth Core, white evangelical Republicans were considerably less likely to say they were vaccinated or planning to get vaccinated as soon as possible (53 percent) than Republicans who were not white evangelicals (62 percent). Moreover, white evangelical Republicans were the most likely of any large subgroup we surveyed to say they were refusing to get vaccinated (26 percent).


That the combination of being a Republican and a white evangelical would form a particularly toxic anti-vax stew, more significant than party or religion alone, seems obvious to me, but then again, I grew up in rural Texas — I see this combination of beliefs in motion every day on Facebook, where I’m connected to many high school and college classmates.


According to PRRI’s 2020 religion census, the county where I lived longest as a kid (Leon) is 72 percent white Christian, including 44 percent white evangelical, and election data shows 87 percent of the county voted for former President Donald Trump in 2020. Just over one-third of the county’s eligible population is fully vaccinated, even though COVID-19 case rates are higher than they have ever been. At least three people who went to high school with me have died, while tracking statistics say at least 1 in 9 Leon County residents have been ill — almost as many as in New York City (1 in 8), one of the hardest-hit areas in the country, and well over the rate in Washington, D.C. (1 in 13), where I live now.

---

COVID-19 cases are rising. Americans’ thoughts on next steps. | FiveThirtyEight

ALL VIDEOSYOUTUBE

---

Filed under COVID-19

Unvaccinated America, In 5 Charts

Still Unsure About Getting The COVID-19 Vaccine? Start Here.

Who Wants To Return To The Office?

Some Republicans Have Changed Their Messaging On The COVID-19 Vaccine. Is It Too Little, Too Late?


This is significant because Leon County is extremely rural, with less than 20,000 total residents, including less than 2,000 in Buffalo, the town I lived near. For reference, my high school has only about 260 students at any given time. If you need ICU treatment, you have to travel — there are currently no hospitals with ICUs in the county. 


But what is also significant about Leon County is the role religion has played in residents’ low vaccination rates even when faced with death from the coronavirus. When my classmates were hospitalized with COVID-19, there were repeated calls for prayers and proclamations that God would provide healing. When they died, those prayer requests became comments that “God called [them] home.”


The belief that God controls everything that happens in the world is a core tenet of evangelicalism — 84 percent of white evangelicals agreed with this statement in PRRI polling from 2011, while far fewer nonwhite, non-evangelical Christians shared this belief. The same poll also showed that white evangelicals were more likely than any other Christian group to believe that God would punish nations for the sins of some of its citizens and that natural disasters were a sign from God. What’s more, other research from the Journal of Psychology and Theology has found that some evangelical Christians rationalize illnesses like cancer as God’s will. 


This is why I remember friends and acquaintances in Leon County when I think about how religious beliefs influence one’s attitude toward COVID-19 and vaccination. PRRI’s March survey found that 28 percent of white evangelical Republicans agreed that “God always rewards those who have faith with good health and will protect them from being infected with COVID-19,” compared with 23 percent of Republicans who were not white evangelicals. And that belief correlates more closely with vaccination views among white evangelical Republicans — 44 percent of those who said God would protect them from the virus also said they would refuse to get vaccinated. That number drops to 32 percent among Republicans who are not white evangelicals.


Complicating matters further, the pandemic also fits neatly into “end times” thinking — the belief that the end of the world and God’s ultimate judgment is coming soon. In fact, nearly two-thirds of white evangelical Republicans (64 percent) from our March survey agreed that the chaos in the country today meant the “end times” were near. Faced, then, with the belief that death and the end of the world are a fulfillment of God’s will, it becomes difficult to convince these believers that vaccines are necessary. Sixty-nine percent of white evangelical Republicans who said they refused to get vaccinated agreed that the end times were near.
[/url]
RELATED: Americans Are In Favor Of Vaccine Mandates. But Support Is Driven Mainly By Those Who Have Already Gotten The Jab. [url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-are-in-favor-of-vaccine-mandates-but-support-is-driven-mainly-by-those-who-have-already-gotten-the-jab/?cid=_inlinerelated]Read more. »


Moreover, given how many white evangelicals identify as Republican or lean Republican — about 4 in 5 per our June survey — disentangling evangelicals’ religious and political beliefs is nearly impossible. Consider how many white evangelical leaders like former Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. downplayed the severity of the pandemic in line with Trump. Falwell was hardly the only evangelical leader to do this either. If anything, the pattern of white evangelical resistance to vaccination has reached the point where some white evangelical leaders who might otherwise urge vaccination hesitate to do so because of the political climate. 


In the same survey, about 2 in 5 white evangelical Republicans (43 percent), and Republicans more broadly (41 percent), said one reason they hadn’t gotten vaccinated was that the COVID-19 pandemic had been overblown.


It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that most white evangelical Republicans, and Republicans in general, disagreed with our question about the Golden Rule, that “because getting vaccinated against COVID-19 helps protect everyone, it is a way to live out the religious principle of loving my neighbors” (57 percent and 58 percent, respectively). This may be because for some white evangelicals and Republicans, politics and religion are inseparable — and God’s will, or their interpretation of it, controls everything.

Focusing on the largest groups isn't bad no matter how many smaller groups someone wanted to see instead.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

So I just went to the Clemson vs Georgia game at the Panthers stadium in Charlotte yesterday. As far as I knew North Carolina was a lot more strict about Coronavirus procedures than South Carolina was, but we had 75,000+ fans in a packed out stadium and I swear I maybe saw 5 people in the whole stadium wearing a mask. Of course this is the first game I’ve been too since before last season, but I kind of figured there would be a mask mandate or something.

[*jason*]

(09-05-2021, 02:02 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: So I just went to the Clemson vs Georgia game at the Panthers stadium in Charlotte yesterday. As far as I knew North Carolina was a lot more strict about Coronavirus procedures than South Carolina was, but we had 75,000+ fans in a packed out stadium and I swear I maybe saw 5 people in the whole stadium wearing a mask. Of course this is the first game I’ve been too since before last season, but I kind of figured there would be a mask mandate or something.

It's outside, and people should be vaccinated. I know there are areas of the stadium that aren't exactly outside, but still. It's really hard to enforce that among 70,000 people too.

I was at the Knicks and Hawks playoff game in Madison Square Garden back in May. It was packed and next to no one wore a mask.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(09-06-2021, 08:34 PM)jason Wrote: It's outside, and people should be vaccinated. I know there are areas of the stadium that aren't exactly outside, but still. It's really hard to enforce that among 70,000 people too.

I was at the Knicks and Hawks playoff game in Madison Square Garden back in May. It was packed and next to no one wore a mask.

True but this is rednecks from SC and GA so I bet there were plenty of unvaccinated people there too.