このツイートは、ツイートの作成者により削除されました。詳細はこちら
ツイート
会話
Where's that raw data? Link please?
32
10
487
返信先: さん
Thanks for asking. Twitter, of course, does not lend itself to full citations.
I derived the number from published COVID-19 death rates of unvaccinated people (about 1,000 per day). And from the polls that show 25% of Republican voters are unvaccinated, versus 5% of Democrats.
I mean, this is already a lot better than “lol do your own research, I read on Facebook “……
5
1
37
返信を表示
返信を表示
返信先: さん
And yeah, Twitter totally makes it hard to link to other information aka citations.
Classic liars tell.
7
4
51
He would have had to link 2 separate citations, possibly 3, and then show you his calculations with a fourth citation. It’s fair to say you don’t believe him, but basing it on him not listing out 3-4 citations is bad faith.
2
9
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
So, in other words, your post is based on assumption and not actual scientific data?
2
1
61
he just wrote that the data he's using is published
2
19
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
Did you took in account the rates of infection and political association by region? What about rates of vaccination by different groups and their political association?
That's a really gross inference :/
4
3
104
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
“Twitter, of course, does not lend itself to citations”
How embarrassing
1
97
It gets you in the ballpark unless there were other factors that cause a much higher/lower Covid mortality in one of the groups, which seems unlikely.
2
返信先: さん, さん
This painfully bad stat analysis would get an F in any high school prob-stat unit.
Among many egregious errors (such as not accounting for geographical distribution), you are assuming that only registered Dem/Rep die of COVID! Bless the sCiEnCe the cure is here: Register “Jedi”!
6
3
143
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
That doesn’t make your math right… Wtf?! That’s an assumption…. Smfh. “Back of the envelope” math that doesn’t include politics or people dying, Neil.
2
1
31
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
The next question:
Will the deceased GOP voters cast ballots in the coming elections?
5
2
16
You win the internet this week.
1
1
返信先: さん, さん
1. Vaccinated people can die of Covid
2. The polls might be inaccurate
Any link to the polls?
1
3
返信を表示
It’s disingenuous to make this point without understanding why black people are not getting vaccinated. As though medicine has been kind to us throughout history.
2
4
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
The vaccine up till now had not been FDA approved. Is the FDA willing to share the metrics they used to approve the vaccine? Can't guilt people into getting it....
1
2
Ah, so we can independently verify the approval like we do with all those other FDA approved medicines we consume, right?
1
5
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
I wish you had been more thorough - a sad concerning fact is that minorities suffer disproportionately high mortality and in Ohio have been over represented (even with delta). So your math is off. Please correct so we have a better number to gauge.
1
1
返信先: さん, さん
This is a painfully bad way to do science, not that that’s what you are actually doing. Sad to see you beclown yourself.
2
51
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
Nope to say it is all Republicans what was used to establish a person is republican a vote they did or are we assuming they voted like that thru social media or is it by states
alot of unknown in this equations to make that statement as a fact
1
2
It’s a poll. So they’re self-identified Republicans.
2
1
返信先: さん, さん
This is a prediction based on other statistics. It needs validation before it should be presented as fact.
1
3
It’s not being presented as fact.
If you think Twitter is a repository of facts, woe be unto you.
1
1
返信先: さん, さん
Could part of the reason the numbers look this way be that COVID mostly kills old people, and most old people vote conservative?
1
3
返信先: さん, さん
This is a horrible take for 2 obvious reasons:
1.) You're assuming that those distributions reflect deaths. Imagine that there was only 1 total person in the NDTea party who lives on Mars and is unvaccinated. 100% of NDT voters are unvaccinated - do 1000 die daily?
2
1
32
Which brings me to point 2.
Not everyone in the US is represented by that binary classification. So at least SOME of those 1000/day are neither, even if distributions did represent deaths.
Please stop politicizing this worse than it already is and let epidemiologist work.
1
1
20
返信先: さん, さん
not all 1000 people are necessarily Democrat or Republican voters. Some may be independents and some may be non voters. You'd have to also consider what percent of the population is independent voters and non voters to get a better macro number.
3
返信先: さん, さん
correlation versus causation. There's no meaningful real correlation between those two. You're deriving your figures based off of a bias.
I thought better of you than that
2
1
18
返信先: さん, さん
I feel that's irresponsible to represent the numbers that way because we don't know how many of those people who died were actually registered voters. Nor do we know what party affiliations they had. Statistics can't tell you everything especially when you add in human behavior.
3
返信先: さん, さん
Neil you need to get off your horse and go sit in a statistics class again...all you've done is take two separate pieces information and made a wild generalization. Be Better
1
1
77
返信先: さん, さん
Well, I mean you might be right, but it would be a pretty big coincidence. I'm sure Twitter isn't sensitive about people just winging the data and making claims about COVID-19, these days.
1
返信先: さん, さん
So you are guessing/wishing. Seems like many "experts" are doing so.
1
返信先: さん, さん
You're forgetting independent votes. There are almost as many independent voters as republican voters
このツイートは、ツイートの作成者により削除されました。詳細はこちら
Because he used the data properly?? Lol.
2
返信先: さん, さん
I think the rate of Republicans not vaccinated is MUCH higher (self reporting inaccuracies).
Do you have a link to the article, by chance?
返信先: さん, さん
And just like that, I’ve lost all respect for you. This is embarrassing.
2
Twitterを使ってみよう
今すぐ登録して、タイムラインをカスタマイズしましょう。