-5
Urallfucked -5 points ago +1 / -6

Jesus fucking Christ dude

-7
Urallfucked -7 points ago +1 / -8

Am I ignorant? No. Are you? That depends on how you react / dismiss this following article.

https://www.wabe.org/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate/

LIVE WABE 90.1: 1A

NEWS Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame Daniel Wood, Geoff Brumfiel | NPR

December 5th, 2021

Daniel Wood / NPR

Updated December 5, 2021 at 10:27 AM ET Since May 2021, people living in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump during the last presidential election have been nearly three times as likely to die from COVID-19 as those who live in areas that went for now-President Biden. That’s according to a new analysis by NPR that examines how political polarization and misinformation are driving a significant share of the deaths in the pandemic.

NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available. People living in counties that went 60% or higher for Trump in November 2020 had 2.7 times the death rates of those that went for Biden. Counties with an even higher share of the vote for Trump saw higher COVID-19 mortality rates.

In October, the reddest tenth of the country saw death rates that were six times higher than the bluest tenth, according to Charles Gaba, an independent health care analyst who’s been tracking partisanship trends during the pandemic and helped to review NPR’s methodology. Those numbers have dropped slightly in recent weeks, Gaba says: “It’s back down to around 5.5 times higher.”

The trend was robust, even when controlling for age, which is the primary demographic risk of COVID-19 mortality. The data also reveal a major contributing factor to the death rate difference: The higher the vote share for Trump, the lower the vaccination rate.

-7
Urallfucked -7 points ago +1 / -8

It does have to do with wilful and weaponized ignorance which is more representative of how the alt right are doing their "science"

-7
Urallfucked -7 points ago +1 / -8

It has to do in that the anti science crowd lacks the good faith necessary to have an honest discussion. The figureheads of the anti vax are too invested in taking advantage they can't be seen to understand basic science or else it blows a hole in everything they say.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes&ved=2ahUKEwjyi6LHsN7_AhURHDQIHYyyCo4QFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0p30bourJuW4Mpluj2bJqq

Apparently 12 people are responsible for 70% of disinformation stories too. They arm people with a script for everything that ensures you never have to understand things fully or indeed debate in good faith - because otherwise you might just be convinced.

-6
Urallfucked -6 points ago +1 / -7

GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person’s dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say. In many cases, they are working together towards a resolution that will be mutually satisfying. “Good faith” is similar to “good will,” in that you wish the other party well and do not intend harm. Each party accepts the other person as a separate individual with autonomous free will, an independent mind, good and true intentions, and the right to have their own opinions and reach their own conclusions. We see this sort of discussion on display in governmental bodies where representatives of opposing parties refer to each other as “the loyal opposition” or the “honorable” member, and so on. A “discussion” in which both parties are operating in “good faith” can be worthwhile, productive, enlightening, and satisfying, even if no agreement is reached and, in the end, they “agree to disagree.” BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity, or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will. A “bad faith” discussion is doomed to fail, as one or both person’s rights, dignity, and autonomy are not respected. A “good faith” argument relies on persuasion to try to convince the other person whereas a “bad faith” argument relies on other means, possibly including intimidation or coercion. “Bad faith” arguments in private life are best exited swiftly, and are generally not effective at swaying hearts and minds. In public life, they are best exposed. As Dale Carnegie expressed it in How to Win Friends and Influence People, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” [This adage appeared earlier as “Convince a man against his will, He’s of the same opinion still.” in the notes of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792, by Mary Wollstonecraft.] In general, it is always best to begin a discussion and to proceed with the presumption of mutual good faith, until or unless proven otherwise.

Because your side has the hidden agenda and will never accept that they're wrong, as well as only ever being capable of bad faith arguments and tactics - debating is actually impossible

-6
Urallfucked -6 points ago +1 / -7

Is one person representative of everyone based on one facet of their personality? Do other transgender peoples deserve their rights taken away because this one person allegedly did something shitty?

Grow up and take some fricking mushrooms man we're more alike than we are different

-6
Urallfucked -6 points ago +1 / -7

You're confusing bad faith acting with debating.

Eg, you guys say "not enough research or shit when into it" while not specifying or even having in mind any standard that would be enough. If I bring up any thing you'll look for any single minor detail and then whinge about that instead of interacting with the hard data or considering that you might be in the wrong.

If you want to effectively debate you can't go in with your position already made up with no tolerance for new information or changing your stance.

And debating about covid requires things like you to know what mRNA is, how statistics actually work, and things that you're too busy getting taught responses to actually learn anything.

-10
Urallfucked -10 points ago +1 / -11

They self quarantine by nature of their community led lives with very little outside contact of course they have the least covid.

In fact, and obviously, you can see higher excess deaths in republican counties where douchbags mouth breathed on eachother in spite of common sense guidelines.

Also this article seems like baseless assumption with no sources showing that the Amish did indeed behave in the way they're touting. Did they really take ivern paste really? I'm dubious.

In fact the "source" is from a twitter poll where they tried to name 5 Amish people that people on social media personally knew which is backwards and hilarious that they think "no more than 5 Amish people died because our listeners at backfuck digest couldn't name anyone personally"

Nice "news" guys.

-11
Urallfucked -11 points ago +1 / -12

Are you gonna prove that it's unreliable or what?

-10
Urallfucked -10 points ago +1 / -11

No? Malinformation infuriates me. You're objectively wrong and killing your buddies.

-13
Urallfucked -13 points ago +1 / -14

Can you not read?

"Researchers did not provide vaccine effectiveness estimates because they did not calculate how many of the infected employees were unvaccinated"

This data is worthless if in reality you're more likely to be seriously and lastingly ill when unjabbed which data from not fringe websites that actually look at all the relevant data inevitably conclude.

-11
Urallfucked -11 points ago +1 / -12

I've only heard of them from Wax's song - but yeah why get anything other than Innis and gunn if you're beering it up ammite

-12
Urallfucked -12 points ago +1 / -13

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Maybe there's no point because the science is settled and the only people arguing are whinging idiots?

-12
Urallfucked -12 points ago +1 / -13

There's no point debating with someone who is incapable of changing their mind or communicating in anything but bad faith. All the posts you guys throw around of some expert and some antagonistic dick, the dick is failing (or refusing)to grasp some simple concept that their understanding hinges on.

If you were capable of having a real conversation and or debating in good faith with the knowledge that you might not be right, you simply wouldn't be who you are.

-13
Urallfucked -13 points ago +1 / -14

And you sound like a raging incel.

-12
Urallfucked -12 points ago +1 / -13

You're super cringe. Enjoy never knowing a woman's touch, incel.

-12
Urallfucked -12 points ago +1 / -13

Your self awareness is not great my dude

-13
Urallfucked -13 points ago +1 / -14

But with a bomb strapped to your chest? That's insinuating politial motivation and terrorism.

-13
Urallfucked -13 points ago +1 / -14

I'm sure this sourceless Elon era twitter post is real reliable now that he's gotten rid of the disinformation department

-12
Urallfucked -12 points ago +1 / -13

sorry but you fucked up and ruined your life

Projection at its finest. I remember on mother's day you were commenting that the reasonable voices were absent - because we were spending time with our families - why weren't you? Has your family abandoned you because you fell in the alt right rabbit hole or malinformation and gullibility?

You're raging but if you actually read anything relevant you'd know you've been duped and taking advantage of.

-13
Urallfucked -13 points ago +1 / -14

No link no surprise. Because then people would be able to see the table 1 you're ommitting to support your bullshit narrative - also I'm pretty sure it says right in there that it's from a preprint that missestimated the amount of vaccines given.

Statistics that show the majority of deaths from COVID-19 are among vaccinated people reflect the fact most people are vaccinated, not that the vaccines are ineffective, as implied in a social media post. Similar statistics show COVID vaccines continue to reduce the risk of dying and severe illness

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-casualties-vaccines-idUSL1N32R1UI

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/30/fact-check-misleading-claim-deaths-fully-vaccinated-people/4856504001/

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›