A perfect example of bias... whether intentional or not... and how something can be true, but numbers can be manipulated to make them appear 'not' true.

https://www.chron.com/coronavirus/articl...400169.php

Edits from the article meant to show the disconnect... not mislead...

Quote:Patrick acknowledged that "covid is spreading" and that infections are largely among people who have not received the vaccine.

"Democrats like to blame Republicans on that," Patrick said. "Well, the biggest group in most states are African Americans who have not been vaccinated.
The last time I checked, over 90% of them vote for Democrats in their major cities and major counties."

Quote:The latest data from the Texas Department of State Health Services shows that the African American population there is not driving the increase in cases. Black residents in Texas accounted for 16.4% of the state's cases and 10.2% of deaths as of Aug. 13. While vaccination rates are low among Black Texans, the highest coronavirus case rates are among Whites and Hispanics, who make up 34.9% and 35.8% of the state's cases respectively, according to the latest data.

Well, let's see.
According to wiki as of 2019, Non-Hispanic Whites were 41.2% of the population. Hispanics were 39.7% and Blacks were 12.9%. Compare that to the percentages above and blacks are the only group there 'over-represented' relative to the population.

So... Is Patrick wrong?? Well, yes and no. It depends on what you mean or how you take it. When we talk about how more white Americans are on assistance or in jail or whatever, we are reminded (correctly) that as a percentage of the population, blacks are over-represented there. That's true... and is what should be focused on... so why does that not apply here??

Patrick is making a political argument... he SAYS that Dems will blame the rise in COVID cases on Republicans, but that Black Americans (who are somewhat of a proxy for the democratic party based on their propensity to vote left) are both highly unvaccinated... AND over-represented in the 'infected' population.

According to this:

Overall, across these 40 states, the percent of White people who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose (50%) was roughly 1.3 times higher than the rate for Black people (40%) and 1.1 times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (45%) as of August 16, 2021.

So Patrick is 100% correct... but he says it in a way that can be taken to mean something different.

Is he trying to imply that blacks are a problem?? That is certainly what the writer/editor of the article is inferring. Or is he trying to imply more directly what he said... and something I said a long time ago... that LOTS of Democrats are not getting vaccinated... and he's using the black voting population as a proxy (since its easier to identify someone's race than political affiliation in healthcare issues and in this specific population, the correlation between race and party is quite strong and consistent)

Said differently...
If 100% of white Dems and 0% of white Reps were getting vaccinated, you'd see numbers for white that are about what is reported here... around 50%. But we know for a FACT that many white Republicans are vaccinated... so its hard to draw conclusions. The black population is about 90/10... so again if all black dems were getting vaccinated and all black reps weren't, the population would be about 90% vaccinated. They're less than HALF that.

If the vaccine were as big a political issue as many are making it out to be (and we had this conversation some weeks ago)... then you would see large divides between the parties and areas. SF would be 90+% vaccinated. Blacks would be 90%+ vaccinated. The reality is that the differences seem to be about 10%... so while yes, Republicans tend to be less vaccinated, this is probably a result of them living much more often in more remote areas and thus they don't 'feel' the impact as much as dems who tend to live in more densely populated areas.... and despite the memes being put out there... that the 'push back' from the left and right in most other places from the vegan/granola left anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory/lone wolf right seem to be about the same.

So BOTH parties clearly seem to have some 'buy-in' issues with their constituents. I think that is clearly Patrick's point, at least here in what is quoted... but the entire article seems to want to imply that he's being racist.

That's what the left routinely does... and the media here is complicit... and its a problem. Patrick may well be a racist... I don't know... make that argument if you want... but for the press to be involved in spreading a clearly false narrative here is NOT what the press should be doing.

I think people are jumping the gun significantly on the racist thing with Patrick’s statements. They were inarticulate at worst.

But there is a rather large divide politically, so I don’t think the other part of your thesis is as powerful:

Quote: In addition to misstating his point, Patrick glossed over the huge partisan divide in vaccination rates. As of late July, according to a KFF survey of adults, 86 percent of Democrats were at least partly vaccinated, compared to 54 percent of Republicans. That gap is much bigger than the difference between blacks and whites. Furthermore, unvaccinated Republicans are more likely than unvaccinated Democrats to say they "definitely" won't be inoculated. Unvaccinated whites likewise are more firmly opposed to inoculation than unvaccinated blacks.

https://reason.com/2021/08/22/texas-lt-g...-the-gops/

Plus, look at how Trump was just booed for advocating for getting vaccinated.

(08-22-2021 06:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think people are jumping the gun significantly on the racist thing with Patrick’s statements. They were inarticulate at worst.

But its not 'people'... its the press. The press often drives what 'people' think.

That's not what the press should do. They should not be 'influencers'... and this is a perfect example of the press not doing their job... and we say (mostly) nothing and let it happen.

Quote:But there is a rather large divide politically, so I don’t think the other part of your thesis is as powerful:

Quote: In addition to misstating his point, Patrick glossed over the huge partisan divide in vaccination rates. As of late July, according to a KFF survey of adults, 86 percent of Democrats were at least partly vaccinated, compared to 54 percent of Republicans. That gap is much bigger than the difference between blacks and whites. Furthermore, unvaccinated Republicans are more likely than unvaccinated Democrats to say they "definitely" won't be inoculated. Unvaccinated whites likewise are more firmly opposed to inoculation than unvaccinated blacks.

https://reason.com/2021/08/22/texas-lt-g...-the-gops/

Plus, look at how Trump was just booed for advocating for getting vaccinated.

[/quote]

Well, we spent months and an entire election cycle blaming Trump for not advocating more strongly for this... over comments by people like me who recognized that 'his people' wouldn't blindly follow him.... and now Trump getting booed is proof of that belief, but still used a false flag.

His most ardent supporters are the 'less intrusive' government types... and this is the epitome of intrusive government and not choice.... especially for large swaths of the Republican population who live in more remote parts of the country.

As to the KFF study. It is (perhaps) technically correct, but it ignores many aspects that I deal with every day.... and misleading as a result. The fact that we are even discussing this as a political issue is the problem. It creates the very 'virtue signaling' that we've discussed before.

First, if 86% of dems and 54% of Reps are vaccinated, how is 'the most' vaccinated state Vermont at less than 68%?? How is California at less than 55%?? Even Marin county is only at 80% for at least one vaccine and SF is behind them, so I have no idea where KFF is getting this number.

There is more going on there than this simple (and grossly misleading) binary conclusion. A big part of it is probably that there are more/larger 'fringe' groups within the Republican party... meaning lots of people who won't say they're Republican, but when given a binary choice will choose the Republican (like me). I would not be part of that 54% because I don't identify as a GOP member... but I (and I suspect a few of the other 'righties on here') are all vaccinated, but not 'Republicans'. Some of it will also be access. It's a whole lot easier to go to a big city (most of which lean left) and serve large swaths of the population than it is to go to Idaho or Iowa or Montana and do the same. San Franciscans, especially in MArin are likely to do the same... just in the opposite direction. The equation is not remotely binary, and this is currently probably more true (nationally) of the right.

I'd also note something that you recognize, but miss the impact of regarding the Trump booing.

If they're booing Trump for supporting vaccines (remember that the entire 'warp speed' to make them available was his doing, even to the point of publicly bullying the FDA and others for their resistance so we can dismiss with the idea that he never supported them) then there is NO reason to think that the 'problem' here lies with 'the party'. Instead it more clearly lies with the fundamental position of Republicans regarding government and 'mandates' within the line of thought of people who lean 'right'.

Whether you choose to believe that Trump represents the fringe of the party or whether he is the base... either way, there is a clear disconnect between vaccines and the political act of making them mandatory. Either way, the problem is not the 'party'.

Yes, I agree 110% that by and large there is a huge divide between the left and right on the function of government. The left (said simply) generally sees government as the solution while Republicans see government generally as the problem. That still doesn't disprove in any way the idea that the most under-represented population by race is blacks, who overwhelmingly skew left. Like Republicans and the lack of 'urgency' because of more disperse population, it probably has to do with a fundamental distrust of being 'Guinea pigs' for a new vaccine and some historical realities towards that.

It's not the parties. EITHER of them. And breaking us down that way to disparage one or the other is not helpful (nor accurate)

I'll throw one other thing in...

If you live in Montana and get sick but don't have a ton of comorbidities, you probably are riding this disease out at home. If you're in a large city and especially if you're poor... you're going to the hospital. Such actions have an impact on people's attitudes.

link for the cali numbers I quoted

https://www.latimes.com/projects/califor...tribution/

To the question about California vaccination rate - I wonder if you're overestimating just how Democrat California (and other states) are?

Per Wikipedia (and I think that's a fine source for this) we're looking at a total population of 40 MM people, 50% of which are registered voters. The split is 46% D, 24% R, and then 30% other/no party preference. So let's assume this split can be extrapolated to the entire population - that's 20 MM D. If 20 MM Ds are partially vaccinated at 86%, then we are looking at 17 MM vaccinated Ds. Rs at 54% = 5 MM Rs vaccinated. Then the others at, say, 70%, that's 8 MM vaccinated. So that is a total of 30 MM or 75% are partially vaccinated. If we drop the "others" to R vaccination levels, we have 70%.

The website you sent shows California at 64% partially vaccinated. So not too far off from the 70% to 75% estimated above.

The point being, just because a state solidly votes Dem in presidential elections doesn't mean there still isn't diversity of thought in regards to political parties.

I think the polling about hesitancy among racial groups and among political parties is likely to be equally real and valid.

(08-24-2021 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the question about California vaccination rate - I wonder if you're overestimating just how Democrat California (and other states) are?

Per Wikipedia (and I think that's a fine source for this) we're looking at a total population of 40 MM people, 50% of which are registered voters. The split is 46% D, 24% R, and then 30% other/no party preference. So let's assume this split can be extrapolated to the entire population - that's 20 MM D. If 20 MM Ds are partially vaccinated at 86%, then we are looking at 17 MM vaccinated Ds. Rs at 54% = 5 MM Rs vaccinated. Then the others at, say, 70%, that's 8 MM vaccinated. So that is a total of 30 MM or 75% are partially vaccinated. If we drop the "others" to R vaccination levels, we have 70%.

The website you sent shows California at 64% partially vaccinated. So not too far off from the 70% to 75% estimated above.

The point being, just because a state solidly votes Dem in presidential elections doesn't mean there still isn't diversity of thought in regards to political parties.

I think the polling about hesitancy among racial groups and among political parties is likely to be equally real and valid.

I'm not. I don't mean that to sound flippant... just that 'figuring out who these people are and how to reach them' is a HUGE part of what I do.

If I went into too much detail it would get way too long and boring so I'll try and simplify.

11% off (your 64 to the 70 or 75) is a significant portion to this conversation. I said I thought the difference between the left and right (nationally) in terms of resistance was more like 10%, and I think KFF (in your reading) suggested it was more like 30%. 11% is more than half the difference... and for Cali alone... a state where the Democratic tilt is among the widest in the nation... And Cali isn't head and shoulders (nor even first) in vaccinations. Said simply... your math provided above is coincidental. The three numbers (R, D, Other) center around 70ish percent so the result is most often going to be something around 65-70% almost regardless of the mix.... and most states are close to that number. 11 points is a lot. Even 6 points off is a lot.

Look at it this way...

CA and NM are both about 45% D and 25% R... and their vaccination rates are both around 68%. Maryland at 55/25 D so even MORE left than Cali, but at 67%. NY is 51/22 and at 66%.

NE is 57% and skews 48/30 R. At 9-11%, That's much closer to my 10% number.

Even if you look at the MOST R vs the MOST D states and ignore the population density which has an impact...

Wy is 44% and skews 70/16 while MD is 55/25 and at 67%

So about 23% is the widest swing, and it includes ALL impacts. Idaho is the lowest at 43.5% but they are 54/14 R. You'd think that having 16% fewer Republicans than Wyoming would cause more than a 0.5% drop??

Cali is odd because its really a tale of two cities. WAY liberal coasts and WAY republican inland. Your numbers don't follow in SF (or Marin) where the vaccine rate (off the top of my head) is around 75% (and 80) but Republicans don't make up enough of the population there to drop them 10 points from KFFs comment about 86%. There are some caveats in their numbers that aren't being mentioned.

I actually think that 'other' is going to tend to be more like 30% in some places and not 70. Other in California may be "naturalists' who don't like vaccines and in Wyoming, 'separatists' who don't like government.

(08-24-2021 10:31 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-24-2021 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the question about California vaccination rate - I wonder if you're overestimating just how Democrat California (and other states) are?

Per Wikipedia (and I think that's a fine source for this) we're looking at a total population of 40 MM people, 50% of which are registered voters. The split is 46% D, 24% R, and then 30% other/no party preference. So let's assume this split can be extrapolated to the entire population - that's 20 MM D. If 20 MM Ds are partially vaccinated at 86%, then we are looking at 17 MM vaccinated Ds. Rs at 54% = 5 MM Rs vaccinated. Then the others at, say, 70%, that's 8 MM vaccinated. So that is a total of 30 MM or 75% are partially vaccinated. If we drop the "others" to R vaccination levels, we have 70%.

The website you sent shows California at 64% partially vaccinated. So not too far off from the 70% to 75% estimated above.

The point being, just because a state solidly votes Dem in presidential elections doesn't mean there still isn't diversity of thought in regards to political parties.

I think the polling about hesitancy among racial groups and among political parties is likely to be equally real and valid.

I'm not. I don't mean that to sound flippant... just that 'figuring out who these people are and how to reach them' is a HUGE part of what I do.

If I went into too much detail it would get way too long and boring so I'll try and simplify.

11% off (your 64 to the 70 or 75) is a significant portion to this conversation. I said I thought the difference between the left and right (nationally) in terms of resistance was more like 10%, and I think KFF (in your reading) suggested it was more like 30%. 11% is more than half the difference... and for Cali alone... a state where the Democratic tilt is among the widest in the nation... And Cali isn't head and shoulders (nor even first) in vaccinations. Said simply... your math provided above is coincidental. The three numbers (R, D, Other) center around 70ish percent so the result is most often going to be something around 65-70% almost regardless of the mix.... and most states are close to that number. 11 points is a lot. Even 6 points off is a lot.

Look at it this way...

CA and NM are both about 45% D and 25% R... and their vaccination rates are both around 68%. Maryland at 55/25 D so even MORE left than Cali, but at 67%. NY is 51/22 and at 66%.

NE is 57% and skews 48/30 R. At 9-11%, That's much closer to my 10% number.

Even if you look at the MOST R vs the MOST D states and ignore the population density which has an impact...

Wy is 44% and skews 70/16 while MD is 55/25 and at 67%

So about 23% is the widest swing, and it includes ALL impacts. Idaho is the lowest at 43.5% but they are 54/14 R. You'd think that having 16% fewer Republicans than Wyoming would cause more than a 0.5% drop??

Cali is odd because its really a tale of two cities. WAY liberal coasts and WAY republican inland. Your numbers don't follow in SF (or Marin) where the vaccine rate (off the top of my head) is around 75% (and 80) but Republicans don't make up enough of the population there to drop them 10 points from KFFs comment about 86%. There are some caveats in their numbers that aren't being mentioned.

I actually think that 'other' is going to tend to be more like 30% in some places and not 70. Other in California may be "naturalists' who don't like vaccines and in Wyoming, 'separatists' who don't like government.

For your splits, are you looking at voting results? Or party affiliation? For example, Pew lists Wyoming party affiliation as 57/25 R/D, which is very different from what you list above.

Regardless, we seem to differ on how significant the split in D/R might be in terms of vaccinations. But to be clear, I'm not using the poll I posted as a gospel that says that this is the split across the entire state. Like any polling, there will be a +/- associated with it.

I just don't think the D/R split that exists on vaccination is insignificant and I don't think pointing out the disparity is "disparaging." I mean, it isn't disparaging to point out the disparity in vaccination rates among black people.

(08-24-2021 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For your splits, are you looking at voting results? Or party affiliation? For example, Pew lists Wyoming party affiliation as 57/25 R/D, which is very different from what you list above.

I used the wiki page you suggested that you said was 'fine' for this comparison on splits.

Quote:Regardless, we seem to differ on how significant the split in D/R might be in terms of vaccinations. But to be clear, I'm not using the poll I posted as a gospel that says that this is the split across the entire state. Like any polling, there will be a +/- associated with it.

Well yeah... you're taking a study from KFF that suggests that dems are 86% in vaccinations... and yet Marin and SF counties which are 90+% Dems isn't at that rate.... so I'm questioning the accuracy of that number for its use as you're using it. It 'may' be technically correct in that 86% of people whom KFF identified as Democrats favor vaccines, but we don't know how that is defined. Registered voters? Self-identified? Who knows?

You yourself just presented two different studies (you chose both of them) who state different percentages for Dems/Reps in an area. Obviously it depends on how you define it..... and also as I suggested... you chose 70% as a midpoint for 'other' who in your example, represent 'everyone else' in a state... which presumes that they are 'between' the left and right on this... and I'm suggesting that in many states and locations, they will be at the extremes of those numbers... like zero... and not 'in the middle'. That's the reality of healthcare outreach. You have populations like Amish or Scientology or 'Green' who don't believe in vaccines, and populations like 'separatists' and 'off-gridders' who don't believe in anything the government does. They aren't 70%... between reps and dems... they're at zero. Lots of them in places like Cali and Wyoming.

Quote:I just don't think the D/R split that exists on vaccination is insignificant and I don't think pointing out the disparity is "disparaging." I mean, it isn't disparaging to point out the disparity in vaccination rates among black people.

It's not... unless you're self-selecting facts to support the conclusion and MAKING it disparaging/virtue signaling.

In order to reach your conclusion that your number is consistent.... you assumed a midpoint 70% number on 25% of the population in Cali... a fact not remotely in evidence and a meaningful portion of the population... just your supposition... and came up 6-11%age points away from the suggested number and you called that a 'win'. My supposition using your exact same sources and math put me 1-2% away and you dismiss it??

It's not disparaging to say that blacks, who skew strongly left... are hesitant on the vaccine. It is absolutely demonstrable. 'Why' MIGHT be disparaging if you suggest that they are hesitant because they are 'less informed' or 'deny science'. or 'following their ill-intended leaders'... but not if you suggested that they had a legitimate reason for their concerns... like historical medical abuse of this population. It is ABSOLUTELY being suggested that Reps are hesitant because they are 'less informed', 'deny science' or are 'following their ill intended leaders'.

It similarly wouldn't be disparaging to Republicans to acknowledge that differences in population densities have a significant influence on attitudes towards healthcare, especially viral spread. People who live in the country (right or wrong) feel less at risk from viral spread and less likely to count on the government to aid them in a time of crisis. This is as much about the simple fact that you might have 1 cop for 100 sq miles and no fire department or hospital for hundreds of miles as anything else.

Its AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING to suggest that people have rationale reasons for any hesitancy.... vs suggesting that they don't. And please don't suggest that there is no 'virtue signaling' going on with regard to vaccinations.