Posted on 04/03/2024 1:07:24 PM PDT by Red Badger
The problem with statistics is that if you are not an honest statistician and have an agenda, you can make the statistics anything you want.
Slay News is a sh***y website, and they should be shunned. I honestly believe they’re a leftist front designed to snare gullible “conservatives” and make us look stupid.
First, their link to the study doesn’t work. Does anyone edit or proofread over there? Here’s the link:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2816958
Second, Slay omits the study’s title:
“Reports of COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events in Predominantly Republican vs Democratic States” and “Question Is state political inclination associated with COVID-19 vaccine adverse event (AE) reporting?”
Why? Probably to get clicks.
In fact, the researchers conclude “ In finding that Republican-inclined states show higher COVID-19 AE reporting than Democrat-inclined states, this study suggests that Republicans are more likely to perceive or report those AEs and that Democrats are less likely to.”
In other words, JSM_Liberty is right: the researchers suggest Republicans are more likely to file an AE while Dems are less likely. That’s it.
Now, we can IMPLY all sorts of things from that statistical observation. Dems may choose politics over health with regard to VAERS. The Repubs are undaunted. And so on. Heck, put on the tin foil hat…after all, the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact is about 2 years.
But that should be reported as a theory or suggestion or tin foil…not a FACT.
relatedly…Third, at NO PLACE in this study are deaths revealed to be “surging.” Indeed, “ Adverse events were reported to the VAERS as severe if they threatened or caused death or led to emergency visits, hospitalizations, or disability.” If Slay had any reading comprehension skills, they’d see that deaths are lumped in with other things. Thus, even with a statistically significant odds ratio (there’s no way the geniuses at Slay could even BEGIN to explain that is basically a relative odds metric) it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim that the trend of deaths went up, or down, or stayed flat.
Slay makes Gateway Pundit look good, and GP sucks. I’ve seen less f-ed up reporting from NPR, and they’re the enemy. And we wind up looking like gullible rubes.
I agree with you about the site. The Expose-News site from the UK IMO is similarly intended to slip a poison pill into legitimately problematic information.
Thank you for verifying my hunch.
That’s propaganda, why don’t they give verifiable numbers?
The bad guys are fully aware of these circumstances. Some of the wackier sites are likely plants to discredit the rest. Others are just sloppy. Many have forgotten how to communicate without using the "seven dirty words" that George Carlin talked about 50 years ago. In any case, planting flat earthers, Jew haters, and writers and podcasters who make outlandish statements without primary source references plasy into the hands of those who would prevent the sheeple from straying from the mainstream disinformation sources.
Why not just share where? I checked the site out, and unless I want to spend all night reading it your link is useless.
Targeting Repubs with the Vax vs Dems getting the placebo.
The Govt would never lie to you right?
I don’t doubt that bad batches were sent to conservative areas, but there could also have been a preponderance of good batches that ended up in conservative areas in that the people in these areas running mass vax sites did a better job of keeping the vaccines cold and fresher and more effective.
I also think people in conservative areas more likely check out non mainstream media sites and thus were likely more aware of VAERS.
FTA:
“The cross-sectional study looked at more than 620,000 entries in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from 2020 through 2022.
The data shows that a 10% increase in ballots cast for President Donald Trump in the last presidential election was associated with a 5% increase in reports of an adverse event after Covid vaccination.”
_____________________________________
A lot of this could simply be due to the fact that in conservative areas people were more skeptical of the vaxseem and read about it and became familiar with VAERS. These people, who didn’t get vaxxed themselves, may have suggested to friends and family who got the Covid vaxseem that the malady they didn’t have before they got the vaxseem could be due to the vaxseem and told them that they should file a VAERS report. There may have been enough conservatives who were suspicious that the vaxseem caused their malady that they took the advice.
A number of conservatives may have already been skeptical and worried about taking the vaxseem but had to take it in order to get to see their parents in a nursing home, fly internationally on required business trips, check on the welfare of their granddaughter, whose dangerously lunatic mother demanded proof of vaccination, etc. These skeptical and worried takers may have known about VAERS and when their fears about what the vaxseem might do to them came true....
BTW, link to the study;
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2816958
“Republicans more likely...”
Bing. Go.
I’d really like to see a poll of what percentage of D’s vs. R’s know what VAERs stands for and other basic questions related to the vaxseem, such if the makers can be held liable for injuries and whether or not the Covid vaxseem used traditional vaxseem methodology.
Likely, and are older.
While these associations were seen across all age groups, they were more pronounced among older people, the study found.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.