Notions like this are why so many Democrats seem so eager for censorship, as reflected in this poll we’re discussing.
It’s not the mainstream media’s fault nobody trusts them anymore. It’s because Joe Rogan is allowed to have a show on Spotify.
It’s like that old Simpsons episode where Principal Skinner reflects on all of the bad outcomes he’s overseen and concludes that it must be the children who are wrong.
Whilst I’m not playing down any other those stats - there are ways of them both being true AND being dishonest. My favourite in the UK was “In recent survey 75% of young people have slept rough in the last 12 months”.
The question was asked in youth centre in poverty hit area and sleeping rough meant not sleeping at you normal home. Younger person was anyone aged under 27.
So anyone below the age of 27 that had slept on their mates sofa for a night was sleeping rough.
But I will say - those are worrying stats. I’m all for get vaccinated or there will be things your struggle to do. But some of those are extreme.
would you accept someone being unvaccinated and natural immunity instead of vaccination?
I was skeptical too, so I pulled up the actual questions asked to see the wording.
I find it disheartening that someone could answer the question of “Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a proposal to temporarily remove parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine?” with any degree of favorable response. And nearly 30% of democrat voters responded that way. That sucks. The fact that 30% of democrats consider not getting the vaccine to make someone unfit to parent is outrageous.
same. I wanted to verify I was legitimate before sharing, and it is unfortunately very legitimate. Yes there are still ways that results could have been altered, but nothing that could be proved with metrics. Polling population is roughly equivalent to the US demographics, and questionairre is not misleading in any way.
It is not as stright forward as “it afford the same protection. There for it is the same”.
In practicality sense either is fine. It is why in the UK if you have had Covid you do not need your boosters for 3-6 months I think.
However the issue with relying on getting Covid for the protection is people will die in the mean time.
Covid has a 99.6% survival rate with treatment. Remove that treatment and that will not remain so high.
In the UK we vaccinated 1/2 million people a day for months on end. If 1/2 a million people a day got covid we would have run out of bed space in before the end of the second week.
You see the problem? Telling people that “getting covid is the same as getting the vaccine” will create a situation where the limited bed space is taken up by those who chose to get ill over the vaccine.
Also “having covid” is too easy to fake. I have covid right now and people are willing to pay for me to test for them. They get 7-10 days off full pay.
So again - practically I agree its the same thing. But it would cost lives to do this.
I too a look and the answers are shocking. And again - not defending them at all. But where and when was this survey taken ETC? Because I’ve been to the states. I stayed with some democrats at an Air BnB. I can not see them associating with anyone like that.
I think anyone who is unvaccinated is already okay with taking the risks of catching Covid. Antibody testing should have been at the center of the stage, not vaccination status.
These two are not the same. Most people that get covid don’t end up in the hospital. Those that end up in the hospital likely would have landed there from a flu all the same. I do not believe there is a single instance of hospitals overflowing due do unvaccinated covid patients (at least in the US), but I could be wrong.
dude the link has 1 ‘click’ recorded and all this information is on it.
“All Rasmussen Reports’ survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that ensures appropriate geographic representation.”
“To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.
After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to ensure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors.”
^polling methodology
I mean, I’m liberal, most of my friends are as well, and I don’t know many people, if any, who would be on board with most of this (fines, taking kids away, etc). But on the other hand, my conservative friends don’t tend to buy into Trumpism. And Trumpism dominates the Republican party now. So I have to take that into consideration and realize the people I tend to associate with in real life really don’t represent the ‘bases’ of either party.
This is where things can get sketchy.
So, Rasmussen himself is very conservative, he’s one of the people who suggested Pence should have overturned the election results, and Rasmussen polls DO tend to have conservative bias in their reporting. But overall, they aren’t bad. Their polls tend to skew towards favorable results for conservative talking points, but they generally aren’t ‘off’ from the majority of polls out there by more than a few percentage points. So even if we assume a conservative bias, it doesn’t matter much. Like with the question about ‘should parents lose their kids for being unvaxed’, it’s pretty much just as bad if the ‘real’ number were something like 24% of democrats instead of 29. That’s still awfully high.
Agree, and agree.
I think many people who are in favor of any of these questions will say otherwise in the presence of others though. Kinda like how some posters on this (or any) forum can say some really off the wall shit at first, then moderate it afterwards. Polls don’t account for that.
Still though, if these are people’s ‘secret’ beliefs - there is a serious problem and I’m buying ammo.
Yea, I mean there are a lot of pitfalls with policy polls like this, that are dissociated from any actual vote. You could definitely have a lot of democrats who would go into a poll like this having already decided they would answer ‘agree’ to ANY measure involving covid, and not actually consider the questions in a specific way. Basically checking ‘yes’ on every box. There’s a decent chance that this made up a pretty significant portion of the responses. Respondents may be asked questions that they haven’t really considered before, and they have to come up with a gut response that, upon further consideration, they may not actually believe.
A few years ago, I was hearing about some people identifying differently than they voted to mess with polls. I don’t see that happening as much with a poll like this, but who knows. Probably a bit of trolling no matter what the poll is about. If that is a fraction of a percent or perhaps a percent or greater, I don’t know?
I know people that do this in california for a few reasons…
The totalitarians are among us and nobody who has been paying attention to policy, rhetoric and the media lies that back it up should be shocked by this.
My Sister In Law is a gene therapy researcher with a graduate degree and I suspect she’s in the totalitarian side.
She even shunned my 21 year old for being unvaccinated and got EXTREMELY upset when I pointed out how many problems this position would cause, not just with him but everyone else in the family who is unvaccinated. If you declare you won’t allow the presence of unvaccinated, well, that’s a problem with you, not the unvaccinated…
Unless you get government involved and dish out some old fashioned totalitarian measures, all for the greater good, of course.
She seemed very upset that I didn’t share her line of thought and never went along with her dumb plan. She even called it an “opportunity”, seemingly under the assumption that his being shunned by his Aunt would instantly change his 21 year old mind.
Total delusion about basic threat assessment, totally delusional about her expectations of other people and totally delusional about her own persuasiveness. These are the type people who are on board with extreme measures.
Aside from being completely delusional about her own self-importance, she’s full-send woke on nearly every issue and completely, totally convinced of her own moral superiority.
I know quite a few woke who I expect fall on the totalitarian side. A few Jiu Jitsu people for sure.
I’m more surprised at the Republicans who are on board with stuff like this.
You say that and this idea comes to mind. Not a lot of people at the extreme ends. But they are noisier people.
In June of this year my dad died. He needed a liver transplant. Didn’t get one. As it happened he was never going to get one. He was a drinker for 40 years. But if he of made the transplant list - we were told the umber of covid infections would be a consideration for his transplant. If numbers were on the up, then hospital resources would be stretched. They did not want to commit to a transplant with a low risk of survival already just before the hospital got smashed by a wave of covid.
Like wise when my son was born and needed CPAP and enriched air. What is there was not O2 or ventilators for him because the wards where full of people who “didn’t mind taking the risk with their own lives”?
Because hospital treatment is finite resource. And its fine to say “I’d rather risk it” but that has an effect on people that do not choose to be in hospital. But need the hospital care someone is getting because they chose to get Covid rather than get the vaccine.
And again - it is “fine” to say you’d rather get natural immunity than vaccine. But that decision, for the reasons above is selfish and arguable cruel. In that someone would use a resource they did not need, so that when someone needed it, it was not there. It also flies in the face of logic and science making stupid.
Because for all the bro science and hidden deaths and internet experts I happen to know a fellow of the royal college of physicians. That’s not just a doctor. He gets paid to travel the world and hand out advice to other world leading hospitals. His knowledge is beyond reproach from anyone on this forum (unless someone want to evidence an equally impressive qualification). And he tells me the vaccine is safe. And to be fair - that is all I need to know.
FYI - the polling methodology is off. Phone and internet opinion polling is shit. I could go on a rant about that all night. And go over the 3-4 main reasons. They are the same reasons you find internet arguments descending in to “you’re a Nazi” or why grown men think its okay to threaten to rape a sports stars wife.
The problem with this line of thought is that there is no limiting principle. You could apply this logic to nearly everyone. Are you overweight? Well, no treatment for you since you’re depriving others of valuable medical resources. It’s selfish and cruel, haven’t you heard?
Drinker? See above.
Smoker? See above.
Steroid user? See above.
Injured during participation in entirely optional activities like recreational bicycling, BJJ or strongman competition? See above.
Amish? See above. You need to be looked into and possibly dealt with.
Going 10 over the speed limit in the accident that has you in the hospital? See above. Back of the line for you, we’ve got people with a higher social credit score who need treatment.
If the unvaccinated warrant such harsh measures relative to the risk they may (or may not) introduce, why not the populations I mention above?
People cause all kinds of passive harm to others for all kinds of reasons, both good and bad, selfish and noble. Unintended consequences surround us all of the time.
That’s no reason to let the scared, weak and short-sighted among us rule the day and set policy behind the shield of “if it saves one life”. These scared, weak, and short-sighted voters are the people who respond favorably to authoritarianism in the face of a virus.
This is not going anywhere good and it’s time for folks to line up and decide what side you’re going to be on. If you’re still a democrat and not an authoritarian, I’d encourage you to ask yourself “Why?”.
Are you suggesting this poll is unrepresentative of American opinions?
If so, what do you imagine the margin of error might be?
Do you think it should be discarded entirely, with no meaningful insight to be drawn?
How are you still arguing against this poll while
I’m sorry for the difficulties you and your family have endured; these years have been very difficult for most of us. My mother in law suffered a stroke early 2021, wife went through brain surgery mid-2021, and our dog died not 2 weeks after the surgery. I have sympathy for your situation and respect your point of view, but I sincerely disagree with your arguments.
You cannot play “what ifs” in a logical argument and I believe you’re educated enough to know that. I also haven’t claimed the vax isn’t safe, but I do believe they are under-reporting on its side effects.
P.S. I had covid and was out of it in 3 days, back to lifting in 5 and back to normal strength a week after first symptoms. I am unvaccinated and do not regret it.
I read the poll as well, for the record. It didn’t strike me as inherently deceptive or somehow fishing for responses that could be mischaracterized.
I read it.
Vaccines safe and effective. Most likely the opposite.
Hash tag follow the science
You didn’t read it did you. Here’s a segment:
“I agree with the WHO statement,” he said. “We should be concentrating resources on immunising the huge numbers of people worldwide who have not yet had their first two doses, using third or booster doses to protect the most vulnerable populations, and developing pan-variant vaccines for vaccine escape—vaccines that will tackle future variants that cause hospital admissions and death.
