303
Do you think? A whole voting block being told to not get vaccinated? To not wear masks? GOP politics MAY be to blame.
Reddit used to have a whole separate called /r/HermanCainawards that posted COVID Darwin award winners.
It was brutal but honestly the recipients all earned it.
It was better at the beginning before they started requiring names and pfp to be covered in posts. Even if it was a celebrity. All the posts were from public social media pages. If someone is enough of a dumbass to broadcast their dangerous stupidity to the world, they they don't deserve anonymity.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So sad that Me-ma and Pop-Pop followed the advice of someone who told them the answer might be to inject bleach and shove a light bulb up their ass.
I'm sorry but it's never fault of the conservatives or their leaders. Despite telling everybody else to take responsibility for their own lives and decisions conservatives have mastered the art of conspiracy so that they always have someone else to blame. In this case it's those evil liberals in the "organized left" using reverse psychology.
https://www.yahoo.com/video/breitbart-writer-claims-organized-left-124015633.html
load more comments
(1 replies)
If only the census was happening this year and not 2020.
I’ll bet their higher religiosity and tendency to congregate in church weekly couldn’t have helped either.
It's not just that. They distrust science and medicine in all things. These are fat, gullible people, in overall poor mental and physical health; exceptions have only skated by on dumb luck. If they didn't believe the docs on virus prevention, they don't believe them on obesity and lung disease prevention either. If they didn't wear masks for COVID, they don't wear them for spraying paint remover at their jobs.
It's industrial hygiene and physical and mental hygiene to which they are ignorant, personal hygiene, too. If they didn't social distance to stop the spread, they dont wash their hands after taking a huge messy shit.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The worst part is it looks suspiciously like a deliberate strategy. They told their base that deliberately not taking precautions "owns the libs", that you should vote in person on Election Day without a mask. This creates a correlation between voting method and candidate, with mail-in votes being mostly Democratic. Then they simply attacked mail-in votes.
Thankfully it ultimately didn't work, but they were willing to kill their voters to try it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I believe the quote goes, ''I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs a woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party"
In equally shocking news, eating cheetos turns your fingers orange.
Link to the actual study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617
BTW, let me add a bit to the cautions about attributing the difference in death rates entirely to Republicans' performative dumbshittery: older people are, in general, both more likely to be Republicans and more likely to die of COVID (and also other diseases that an overloaded medical system could otherwise have helped them with), so there's a pretty obvious confounding variable here.
On the other hand, that confounding variable applied just as much before the vacciles were available, and the difference in death rates doesn't seem to have existed before that.
On the gripping hand, I'd expect the similar difference in performative dumbshittery WRT masks to have been around before the vaccines came out, and to have caused a difference in death rates before vaccines... but it looks like not.
I’m quite confident that these researchers are capable of controlling for other demographic factors, since that’s like data analysis 101. Considering they state the results are stratified by age, why would you think age is a confounding variable? That comment doesn’t make sense to me.
I think the commenter didn’t notice that the analysis controlled for age through stratification. You’re right that that confounding variable is taken care of.
I think you’re right… it’s a little annoying because if I link to a study, I usually read it (or at least the results lol) and give a tl;dr. Even if you don’t do that, I’d hope you’d at least read what you’re sharing. If you’re going to give a commentary, at the bare minimum you should check your source to see if they addressed that.
The only thing more annoying than a person who thinks that correlation is always indicative of causation is the person who thinks that correlation is never indicative of causation.
Um actually this study is dog water because they forgot to count the numbers, obviously. I saw it on the title and clearly I know better
load more comments
(1 replies)
I feel owned so much. It hurt me feelings. Buh...More please?
I'm crying salty liberal tears over their graves.
Didn't we figure this out already?
Yes, there have been a few previous studies about this.
In a related story: the sky is made of air.
It's great to be alive
As the article explains, the study in question is actually kind of weak in terms of providing solid proof that the excess deaths were attributable to COVID-19, but it's apparently one in a growing number of studies that all have relatively weak "arrows" pointing in the same direction. So, the reason researchers view these studies as evidence that Republican messaging on vaccines is partially to blame is due to the collective body of evidence, not just this paper.
But that’s the thing about excess mortality during COVID, it was mostly due actual COVID
load more comments
(11 replies)
Weak compared to what?
In my experience litigating medicolegal causation, this is the nature of epidemiology.
Like, the standard isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt," in my view, it's "preponderance of the evidence," aka "more likely than not."
More likely than not, the excess deaths were COVID. It's like when the weather forecasts a 20% chance of rain. Weak, right? No. It's a 100% chance of rain in 20% of the forecast area.
Is there a group Darwin award?
Dying from COVID to own the libs is it’s own special award
It’s called the Herman Cain Award.
Oh gee you just took me back to deep pandemic times
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
"may"
Evolution at work, Darwin would be pleased.
"The study examined the deaths of 538,139 people 25 years and older in Florida and Ohio"
Would be interesting to see a nationwide study.
load more comments
(1 replies)
its truly hard to feel sorry here.
killing off your voters to own the libs
Gee, ya think?
I know why studies with seemingly obvious results like this are conducted, (sometimes the obvious answer is wrong) but the waste of money still bugs me.
A peer reviewed study (especially when the results are reproduced by another group performing the same experiments and receiving those same results) is the difference between science and anecdote.
The irony is not lost on me that the study itself is of those that rejected completely separate scientific studies, and paid with their lives in doing so.
Sometimes the obvious answer is wrong, but there are plenty of other reasons to run this study. Advocacy is better with real numbers backing it up, there are probably similar circumstances that are less obvious that now warrant a closer look…
In other news, things that water touches becomes wet
Insert YouDontSay.jpg meme here. Not giving op grief. Just can’t believe WaPo has to write out the obvious.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
303 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19072 readers
1918 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS