Awkward Arguments

Good Morning! Have a restful and relaxing Sunday!

A fascinating map:
It shows the correlation of virus outbreak to 2020 election data. Note that the first wave of the virus hit in ‘blue’ districts, as one would expect when a pandemic arrives from overseas. But from summer 2020 to now? The increases are directly predicted by the electoral map! Where trump voters hold sway, so does covid.

Mike wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:06 pm

A fascinating map:

129E7209-A62D-4523-A3C1-3E892D141136.jpeg

It shows the correlation of virus outbreak to 2020 election data. Note that the first wave of the virus hit in ‘blue’ districts, as one would expect when a pandemic arrives from overseas. But from summer 2020 to now? The increases are directly predicted by the electoral map! Where trump voters hold sway, so does covid.

So in other words, trump voters are a virus spreading cult? I kind of thought that.

Randi wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:50 pm

Mike wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:06 pm

A fascinating map:

129E7209-A62D-4523-A3C1-3E892D141136.jpeg

It shows the correlation of virus outbreak to 2020 election data. Note that the first wave of the virus hit in ‘blue’ districts, as one would expect when a pandemic arrives from overseas. But from summer 2020 to now? The increases are directly predicted by the electoral map! Where trump voters hold sway, so does covid.

So in other words, trump voters are a virus spreading cult? I kind of thought that.

Yeah well….. it’s good to have the data that shows it. Particularly since the relentlessness of this virus is affecting Biden’s polling. One might *almost* imagine GOP leaders, knowing that would occur, seeking to keep the virus rolling - and utterly willing to sacrifice the lives of many of their own constituents to do that.

Mike wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:06 pm

A fascinating map:

129E7209-A62D-4523-A3C1-3E892D141136.jpeg

It shows the correlation of virus outbreak to 2020 election data. Note that the first wave of the virus hit in ‘blue’ districts, as one would expect when a pandemic arrives from overseas. But from summer 2020 to now? The increases are directly predicted by the electoral map! Where trump voters hold sway, so does covid.

That is for only one county, but it doesn't specify the county or state.
That very well could be meaningless elsewhere

Senor Natural wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:06 am

Mike wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:06 pm

A fascinating map:

129E7209-A62D-4523-A3C1-3E892D141136.jpeg

It shows the correlation of virus outbreak to 2020 election data. Note that the first wave of the virus hit in ‘blue’ districts, as one would expect when a pandemic arrives from overseas. But from summer 2020 to now? The increases are directly predicted by the electoral map! Where trump voters hold sway, so does covid.

That is for only one county, but it doesn't specify the county or state.
That very well could be meaningless elsewhere

Look at it again. Where you are reading “percent of the county” does not mean “percent of one county in the nation”. It means “for each county, the percent of the county that voted Republican”.

Mike wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 06, 2021 2:40 pm

Senor Natural wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:06 am

Mike wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:06 pm

A fascinating map:

129E7209-A62D-4523-A3C1-3E892D141136.jpeg

It shows the correlation of virus outbreak to 2020 election data. Note that the first wave of the virus hit in ‘blue’ districts, as one would expect when a pandemic arrives from overseas. But from summer 2020 to now? The increases are directly predicted by the electoral map! Where trump voters hold sway, so does covid.

That is for only one county, but it doesn't specify the county or state.
That very well could be meaningless elsewhere

Look at it again. Where you are reading “percent of the county” does not mean “percent of one county in the nation”. It means “for each county, the percent of the county that voted Republican”.

That is a graph manipulated to make a specific point - garbage in effect

Actually this has been reported many times since before Election Day. The data supporting the graph is solid, and the graph is an accurate reflection of that data. But if you feel it’s been manipulated into uselessness, please share your knowledge of how that’s occurring.

Many ways. Simple one - # of republicans not vaccinated and infection rate over the course of the pandemic, place on a the same page a graph of democrats not vaccinated and infection rate over same time period. A direct comparison.
Another show vaccinated republicans and infection rate over the period where vaccinations became available to now. with a direct companion to one of vaccinated democrats and infections over same period.
and another showing comparisons if unvaccinated for both groups since vaccine have become available.
Those simple enough for you?
You have the data, make the graphs and don't skew them for the effect you desire - to paraphrase Jack Webb - Just the facts, Mike, just the facts.

To do those, SN, you’d have to have access to census data and/or voter registration data. That’s different than voting results data.
So go ahead, and do the comparisons you’ve referenced and get back to us. IF your results show something significantly different, THEN you get to say the graph is garbage. I’ll be eager to see what you got.

Btw, punctuation and spelling are your friends. Try ‘em sometime.

Mike wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:17 am

To do those, SN, you’d have to have access to census data and/or voter registration data. That’s different than voting results data.
So go ahead, and do the comparisons you’ve referenced and get back to us. IF your results show something significantly different, THEN you get to say the graph is garbage. I’ll be eager to see what you got.

Btw, punctuation and spelling are your friends. Try ‘em sometime.

I don't have access to that data, but your graph is still skewed, therefore tells on a partial truth at best.
I thought you were into data collection, data ming and interpretation . . .
Guess not.

In other words, you - just like some others round here - throw shit, but refuse to do the actual work of soundly refuting what has been presented.

All you’ve done is mention other methods of potentially getting a competing graph. It’s intellectual dishonesty on your part to then hold me responsible for doing YOUR work. I have more than enough work in my life. You, otoh, keep making noise about being retired. So do something useful with it, and make a meaningful refutation of that graph.

'In other words, you - just like some others round here - throw shit, but refuse to do the actual work' - projection much

It was your work, your intellectual dishonestly, not mine. I don't have to and don't intend to correct your work for you.

Don't be so bitter all the time