US States ranked by fully vaccinated

It defies every bit of the available evidence to suggest there is not a massive partisan divide on Covid vaccination--only an imbecile or the intentionally obtuse would try to.

By that "logic" your response to the 30% of black Americans hesitant to take the vaccine, would be to tell them that they were lied to when they voted for Donald Trump and do a bunch of stuff about Trump and Repubicans?

Do you have any idea how dim-witted that would be?

No one capable of understanding a graph, like say, a statistician, would say otherwise.

You couldn't even grasp the concept/paradox being a 10/10 to 33% of the population being a better product than a product that was 7/10 to 100% of the population.

One of the very purposes of statistical analysis is to look at seemingly contradictory information such as that and determine why the first product is outselling the second product and similar quandaries.

What is your point? That being a Trump supporter is the biggest factor? Because that's a gross over-simplification of a much more complex issue. Did you look at education or religiosity?

Or do you accept Savant's simplistic point that the anti-vaxxers are overwhelmingly Trumpists?

Aren't the facts that most people who are not vaccinated: Republicans. Which these days may as well be called Trumpicans.

By that "logic" your response to the 30% of black Americans hesitant to take the vaccine, would be to tell them that they were lied to when they voted for Donald Trump and do a bunch of stuff about Trump and Repubicans?

Do you have any idea how dim-witted that would be?
You couldn't even grasp the concept/paradox being a 10/10 to 33% of the population being a better product than a product that was 7/10 to 100% of the population.

One of the very purposes of statistical analysis is to look at seemingly contradictory information such as that and determine why the first product is outselling the second product and similar quandaries.

Your statistical analysis is worthless when you spend the majority of your time with your head up your own ass losing arguments.

By that "logic" your response to the 30% of black Americans hesitant to take the vaccine, would be to tell them that they were lied to when they voted for Donald Trump and do a bunch of stuff about Trump and Repubicans?

You don't think people were lied to when they voted for Donald Trump?  "do a bunch of stuff"?  You don't make any sense. 

Do you have any idea how dim-witted that would be?

I have an idea ...

You couldn't even grasp the concept/paradox being a 10/10 to 33% of the population being a better product than a product that was 7/10 to 100% of the population.

Sure I could.  You couldn't grasp the idea that it doesn't apply to a binary decision.  How about you send me a few links to this phenomenon?

One of the very purposes of statistical analysis is to look at seemingly contradictory information such as that and determine why the first product is outselling the second product and similar quandaries.

Says the guy that thinks Indians and vegetarianism is a corollary to African-American distrust of US government .

I looked up strawman in the dictionary today.  It had a picture of you.

I looked up strawman in the dictionary today.  It had a picture of you.

But was it a recent picture?

You don't think people were lied to when they voted for Donald Trump?  "do a bunch of stuff"?  You don't make any sense. 

But that's not the reason African-Americans are not getting vaccinated, therefore "Trump" and "REPUBLICANS" does not sufficiently explain the phenomenon.

Sure I could.  You couldn't grasp the idea that it doesn't apply to a binary decision.  How about you send me a few links to this phenomenon?

1) I never said it was a binary decision, in fact I specifically mentioned it in reference to primaries and elections where there at a minimum is enough of a presence by 3rd party candidates/other nominees to possibly have an effect.
2) At no point did you ever raise the binary issue and state that it only applied then. You made the assumption it was a binary choice. And even when there is a binary choice the 33% product might still outperform the other depending on intensity and indifference.

Says the guy that thinks Indians and vegetarianism is a corollary to African-American distrust of US government .

You didn't get the point did you?

It was to use as an example of flawed statistical reasoning and analysis. That you were drawing the same conclusions, using the same logic as in the example I showed. It was not to say they are the same thing. You could have replaced Indians with "Vulcans" or "Hfgghfdhgerwerians".

Live look at Savant and Mr. C talking to African-Americans who won't take the vax:

Mr. C & Savant: "This is all because of Trump's lies. You've been duped."
Audience: "We didn't vote for Trump."
Mr. C & Savant: "Of course you did, why else are you anti-vax?"
Audience: "We DIDN'T vote for Trump!"
Mr. C & Savant: "This is also because of the Republican Party. They betrayed you and they're manipulating you.
Audience: "We aren't Republicans"
Mr. C & Savant: "Stop voting for Republicans. They hate you and are making this pandemic worse."
Audience: "We aren't Republicans!"
Mr. C & Savant: "Yes, you are, because those who are anti-vax are almost all Republicans"
Audience: "WE AREN'T REPUBLICANS!!!!!"
Mr. C & Savant: "This is because of FOXNews. FOXNews brainwashed you."
Audience: "We don't watch FOXNews."
Mr. C & Savant: "FOXNews is just Republican propaganda. Stop voting Republican and watching FOXNews"
Audience: "WE DON'T WATCH FOXNEWS AND WE DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!"

Seriously, everything looks like a nail to you two hammers. You're so wrapped up in this Trump-Republican view of the world that when something comes along that is somewhat connected to it, but not in the same predictable way, your brain basically short-circuits and can't adapt to a different paradigm.

Paradigms? With your frequently altering viewpoints you’re basically “Marty in the Multi-Verse”. But also more Green Lantern than one of those top-tier Marvel characters.

But that's not the reason African-Americans are not getting vaccinated, therefore "Trump" and "REPUBLICANS" does not sufficiently explain the phenomenon.
1) I never said it was a binary decision, in fact I specifically mentioned it in reference to primaries and elections where there at a minimum is enough of a presence by 3rd party candidates/other nominees to possibly have an effect.
2) At no point did you ever raise the binary issue and state that it only applied then.

https://www.waygook.org/index.php?topic=115682.msg796575#msg796575

"Incidentally, while consumer markets may not usually be two choice situations, US elections almost always are. And that's what we were talking about, isn't it?"

Live look at Savant and Mr. C talking to African-Americans who won't take the vax:

Mr. C & Savant: "This is all because of Trump's lies. You've been duped."
Audience: "We didn't vote for Trump."
Mr. C & Savant: "Of course you did, why else are you anti-vax?"
Audience: "We DIDN'T vote for Trump!"
Mr. C & Savant: "This is also because of the Republican Party. They betrayed you and they're manipulating you.
Audience: "We aren't Republicans"
Mr. C & Savant: "Stop voting for Republicans. They hate you and are making this pandemic worse."
Audience: "We aren't Republicans!"
Mr. C & Savant: "Yes, you are, because those who are anti-vax are almost all Republicans"
Audience: "WE AREN'T REPUBLICANS!!!!!"
Mr. C & Savant: "This is because of FOXNews. FOXNews brainwashed you."
Audience: "We don't watch FOXNews."
Mr. C & Savant: "FOXNews is just Republican propaganda. Stop voting Republican and watching FOXNews"
Audience: "WE DON'T WATCH FOXNEWS AND WE DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!"

Seriously, everything looks like a nail to you two hammers. You're so wrapped up in this Trump-Republican view of the world that when something comes along that is somewhat connected to it, but not in the same predictable way, your brain basically short-circuits and can't adapt to a different paradigm.

Did you even read one word--one word--of the article I posted for your benefit?  It says EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what you "think" we're saying here!

Which is that even Trump-voting A-As' vaccine hesitancy is NOT really related to Trumpism as it is to other longstanding reasons A-As in general (like the ones in the "audience") don't trust and/or can't access government agencies and healthcare. 

The article, which you didn't read, further eviscerates your point that Trump-voting A-As  somehow prove there is something other than Trumpism fueling the vaccine antipathy of Trump voters, who are by far the least-vaccinated political demographic.

The fact that you would go on this completely false screed is just another example of how you degrade discourse on this website with false analogies, mischaracterization and strawmen, and outright lies.  You should stop.

Did you even read one word--one word--of the article I posted for your benefit?  It says EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what you "think" we're saying here!

Of course I didn't read your article. It was behind a paywall. Next time post the article's contents if you are citing something behind a paywall. Anyways, I did do some archive digging and the article starts with a false premise: That conservatives are attempting to "blame" black people or get them blamed for not being vaccinated. That's not what is happening. What they are doing is pointing out the hypocrisy an different standards the media and the left show towards different groups based on whether their "feels".

Yes, the Republicans are much more of the unvaccinated population amongst white Americans and account for most of the disparity, but that doesn't apply to black Americans and thus "Trumpism" as an answer for why Americans are not getting vaccinated is insufficient. I also love how historical distrust of institutions is a legitimate reason for African-Americans but not for Republicans. Does that mean if a black person looks at Tuskegee and is hesitant, it's justified, but if a white Republican looks at Tuskegee, it's not justified? How does that work?

The article basically does the same kind of gross oversimplification and partisan hatchet work as the people it claims to oppose.

Which is that even Trump-voting A-As' vaccine hesitancy is NOT really related to Trumpism as it is to other longstanding reasons A-As in general (like the ones in the "audience") don't trust and/or can't access government agencies and healthcare. 

The article, which you didn't read, further eviscerates your point that Trump-voting A-As  somehow prove there is something other than Trumpism fueling the vaccine antipathy of Trump voters, who are by far the least-vaccinated political demographic

2) Read the above part- You yourself say that AA vaccine hesitancy is NOT related to Trumpism. But the very next sentence you say that my point that something other than Trumpism is fueling vaccine apathy has been eviscerated. Finally, the % of black Americans not being vaccinated is substantially higher than the number that voted for Trump. You have to account for why they aren't getting vaccinated and it isn't because of Trumpism.

There are MULTIPLE REASONS for vaccine hesitancy amongst Americans. Simply blaming Trumpism does not get to the point.

Of course I didn't read your article. It was behind a paywall.

Then why did you respond directly under the link: "Again, this doesn't contradict my point"?  How on earth could you possibly know that if you didn't read the article????

And I am sorry, but it wasn't behind a paywall here--and no, I don't subscribe.

Next time post the article's contents if you are citing something behind a paywall. Anyways, I did do some archive digging and the article starts with a false premise: That conservatives are attempting to "blame" black people or get them blamed for not being vaccinated. That's not what is happening. What they are doing is pointing out the hypocrisy an different standards the media and the left show towards different groups based on whether their "feels".

Yes, the Republicans are much more of the unvaccinated population amongst white Americans and account for most of the disparity, but that doesn't apply to black Americans and thus "Trumpism" as an answer for why Americans are not getting vaccinated is insufficient. I also love how historical distrust of institutions is a legitimate reason for African-Americans but not for Republicans. Does that mean if a black person looks at Tuskegee and is hesitant, it's justified, but if a white Republican looks at Tuskegee, it's not justified? How does that work?

To anyone being honest about the American government's history of treatment of blacks, that question contains its own answer.

The article basically does the same kind of gross oversimplification and partisan hatchet work as the people it claims to oppose.

How on earth can you have that opinion?  You didn't even read the article!

2) Read the above part- You yourself say that AA vaccine hesitancy is NOT related to Trumpism. But the very next sentence you say that my point that something other than Trumpism is fueling vaccine apathy has been eviscerated. Finally, the % of black Americans not being vaccinated is substantially higher than the number that voted for Trump. You have to account for why they aren't getting vaccinated and it isn't because of Trumpism.

There are MULTIPLE REASONS for vaccine hesitancy amongst Americans. Simply blaming Trumpism does not get to the point.

No one has said there is only one reason for vaccine hesitancy.  No one.  But we are saying it's not just a coincidence the the rates are so high among Trumpists.  And that pointing to AAs as if that proves it is, is just incorrect.

Then why did you respond directly under the link: "Again, this doesn't contradict my point"?  How on earth could you possibly know that if you didn't read the article????

I got what I could be constantly refreshing and sure enough, when I read it with an archiver, it was as lackluster as it looked. But after you made a stink about it, I did go back and look for the full article archived in case I missed something.

And I am sorry, but it wasn't behind a paywall here--and no, I don't subscribe.

Maybe it was one of your "Free Articles this Month"? WaPo is subscription-based.

To anyone being honest about the American government's history of treatment of blacks, that question contains its own answer.

Yes, black people are suspicious due to the American government's history of treatment of blacks. Are you suggesting white Republicans can't look at that history and have the same suspicion? I know some people have this cartoonish version of American society where all Republicans hate black people and are Nazis, but in the real world that isn't the case.

How on earth can you have that opinion?  You didn't even read the article!

Because it starts with a false premise. It also doesn't show the same attempt at insight and understanding towards Republicans as it does towards African-Americans.

No one has said there is only one reason for vaccine hesitancy.  No one.  But we are saying it's not just a coincidence the the rates are so high among Trumpists.  And that pointing to AAs as if that proves it is, is just incorrect.

This started with people cheering the fact that unvaccinated people were dying and people saying they were all Trump voters and also saying the unvaccinated should be denied medical care.

Now, just to show that you are consistent, are you also going to cheer the deaths of unvaccinated black people and say they should be denied medical care? Even if they are at lower rates of not being vaccinated than Trump voters, they are still at a sizable rate overall.

Or is this the latest in liberal double-standards and hypocrisy on issues where minority voters come into play-

"Uneducated voters make dumb decisions"
"Uh, you know the black community has one of the lowest rates of education and votes Democrat, are you saying...???

"Religious voters are stupid and they shouldn't encourage people to vote"
"Well black and Latino voters are disproportionately religious. And one of the biggest Dem 'Get out the Vote' drives is 'Souls to the Polls' in which African-American churchgoers are encouraged to go out and vote"

Look either be fair or just abandon any claim to objectivity and go purely subjective. Just say "I'm not going to go hard on black people for not being vaccinated because I don't want to look like a racist, I understand why they are hesitant, I hold them to different standards than white people (and yes, you can hold groups to different standards without being patronizing) plus I just hate Trump voters. Really, most of it is I hate Trump voters."

That's all you have to say. But stop with this attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

The fact is in most cases, this stuff happens because the person says something impulsively like "Religious voters are dumb" or "Unvaccinated shouldn't get care" without thinking it through, and when called on it, rather than admit their F up and that they said something d*ckish, they try and double down and weave all this convoluted BS.

This started with people cheering the fact that unvaccinated people were dying and people saying they were all Trump voters and also saying the unvaccinated should be denied medical care.

Now, just to show that you are consistent, are you also going to cheer the deaths of unvaccinated black people and say they should be denied medical care? Even if they are at lower rates of not being vaccinated than Trump voters, they are still at a sizable rate overall.

Or is this the latest in liberal double-standards and hypocrisy on issues where minority voters come into play-

Who is cheering?  I have a couple of family members who refuse to get vaccinated, I'm not cheering!

We are trying to understand why, and find ways to convince them--not just my relatives, anti-vaxxers in general. 

You have to look at the data to understand the whys of it, and it's certainly a useful data point that pro-Trump Republicans are less vaccinated than non-Trump Republicans and every other political demographic.  Guess where these family members sit.

For someone who is decrying stereotyping, you seem to have very little trouble stereotyping "liberals". 

As far as not getting care, many US hospitals have had to institute a triage system because of unvaccinated people with Covid.  It's not as simple as you seem to think.

As far as not getting care, many US hospitals have had to institute a triage system because of unvaccinated people with Covid.  It's not as simple as you seem to think.

It's quite simple- You don't look at personal history. You treat the problem based on severity and chance of death and what you can do to help.

Same as battlefield medics who would treat wounded on both sides.

…
Same as battlefield medics who would treat wounded on both sides.

Theoretically.

Most people, even medics, are not as altruistic as that.

We are trying to understand why, and find ways to convince them--not just my relatives, anti-vaxxers in general. 

1) Start by listening
2) Accept that the people on "your side" haven't always done things perfectly and made mistakes as well (not saying equivalent, but that there are reasons)
3) Look at why some Dems were skeptical about the vaccines while Trump was President
4) Maybe consider that a soft-sell and leading by example might be ways to do it (and many leaders are doing this or trying "Carrot and Stick" methods- which I applaud as well as some of the sterner measures. We have to see what works and different governors can try different things)

I do think one of the worst things that can be done is the attempt to limit discussion on popular platforms. That is just about the worst thing you can do. It confirms every worst fear of those who are skeptical. It would be like banning discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I agree they are full of rubbish, just like anti-Vax ones, but to limit them would just exacerbate the problem.

Theoretically.

Most people, even medics, are not as altruistic as that.

True, but as a matter of policy we do try to say that medical treatment of wounded/captured should not be dependent on what uniform they wear and that being an enemy soldier does not permit doctors to refuse to help them.

True, but as a matter of policy we do try to say that medical treatment of wounded/captured should not be dependent on what uniform they wear and that being an enemy soldier does not permit doctors to refuse to help them.

But we're not talking about emergency room care here, we're talking about who gets first crack at limited ICU or respiratory care.  And medical history is routinely taken.

"This started with people cheering the fact that unvaccinated people were dying"

One person. Not people.

Yet you ask others to be "fair and objective." That's a real life example of a double standard, not one of your full of hot air hypotheticals.