This is labeled "Analysis by Harry Enten." Now, let's get a close look. I'll put to the side for now the question what makes a theory deadly. You don't die just from believing something. Presumably, people who believe something might do something that could kill themselves or others.
Let's see what this theory is:
The two most monumental events of the last year in the US were the election of Joe Biden to the presidency and the introduction of Covid-19 vaccines. Yet there are those who falsely believe Biden won only because of fraud or that they shouldn't get a vaccine.
Oh. It's 2 theories. Don't tell me Enten is going to add the percentages together to get to "more than half"!
Having either belief is dangerous -- for either the health of society or the health of the republic.
It's "deadly" to think the election result wasn't legit? How many people died from believing there was Russian collusion in the 2016 election? Trusting the reported results of the election is like getting immunity from a deadly disease? That's histrionics. Deadly histrionics. Just kidding. It's annoying, bullshit histrionics.
But back to the math. Enten, are you going to add these 2 percentages together?!
Take a look at the most recent Monmouth University poll, one of the few to ask about both people's vaccine status and how they view the 2020 election result. Not having received a vaccine was a minority position, at 34%, at the time of the poll in mid-June.
Is he assuming that the condition of not having been vaccinated is exactly the same thing as believing some conspiracy theory about vaccinations? What about all the people who think they're immune because they had the disease? What about the people who are just putting it off or afraid of needles or disorganized and lazy? What about the people who feel lucky or who are trusting other people to take precautions? There are lots of ways not to be vaccinated without believing in a conspiracy theory.
Thinking Biden won only because of fraud was a minority position at 32%. But that third of the electorate for both positions is not the same third. About 36% of adults who falsely think Biden won only because of fraud have, in fact, received a dose of the Covid-19 vaccine. This means that when you do the math, only about half (51%) of adults had received a vaccine dose and think Biden won the election fair and square. A slightly lower 45% haven't received a vaccine dose or think Biden didn't win fair and square. (An additional 4% have gotten a dose and aren't sure if Biden won legitimately.) It turns out that we're not just a 50-50 country when it comes to elections -- we're a 50-50 country when it comes to belief in science and truth about this election. This isn't to say that believing a conspiracy theory about the election and not having gotten a dose of the vaccine aren't correlated. They are. The Monmouth poll showed that 64% of people who falsely think that Biden won because of voter fraud also have not received a vaccine dose. Indeed, a lot of this breaks into partisan camps. Most Democrats in this poll (and others) have either received a vaccine dose (83%) or think Biden won fair and square (90%). Likewise, a lot of Republicans haven't gotten a vaccine dose (40% in this poll and closer to 50% in other polls) or believe Biden won due to voter fraud (57%).
Well, I'm certainly relieved that Entin didn't just add the percentages together. But — speaking of deadly — I nearly died trying to read that paragraph.
Posts
13 comments:
George writes:
“Democracy is fun,” says Enten, a CNN election and poll analyst, in a 2019 magazine profile. “It’s one of the most radical things out there, the idea that we’re going to trust our fellow citizens to go and cast their ballot for someone.”
“Today,” the article says, “Enten is so scrupulously nonpartisan he doesn’t vote….His college days were the last time Enten was overtly partisan. He joined the College Democrats…”
The CNN article quotes him saying: “Most of them [the election conspiracists and anti-vaxxers] are Republicans.”
A "scrupulously nonpartisan" analyst would have noted that Democrats cried conspiracy in 2016, and Harris stoked vaccine fears pre-election saying she wouldn't trust a Trump administration vaccine because he "muzzled" "suppressed" and "sidelined" scientists. Some trust, some fun.
Here's the link for "Harris stoked vaccine fears" : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/05/kamala-harris-covid-vaccine-safety-trump-election
From the Desk of Col Mustard:
"So it’s deadly to think (wonder?) about a fraudulent election.
"Given the absolute media blackout of Arizona’s audit of the Maricopa County vote, one wonders if Ms. Psaki has flagged that subject as “misinformation” and threatened the free speech of anyone who would speak or write a word about it. Is ANY subject more dangerous that the right to speak about it?
"As for “misinformation” itself, Burger King might see an uptick in sales if they rolled-out a psuper-psized Whopper called “The Psaki”."
Bruce writes:
"At some point this othering by Democrats (obviously including this author) of those who either don’t believe that Biden won the election fair and square, or that the vaccines are perfectly safe, is going to backfire on them. The reality is that there was significant election fraud in a half dozen critical swing big cities across the countries, and it is possible that that fraud was the margin of victory for Biden and possibly at least three Dem Senators. The evidence is starting to come out. And the idea that the vaccine is perfectly safe is also ludicrous. No vaccine is perfectly safe, and there has been no chance, yet, to see whether these vaccines have long term issues. Moreover, they weren’t tested on youths or children, if for no other reason than they aren’t needed for anyone in those age groups. No well informed ethical physician would give these vaccines to those age groups for just those reasons, because they have no way of knowing if the vaccines were more dangerous than the disease. The almost negligible risks to those in those age brackets don’t justify any vaccine related risks.
"And yet, the house is burning down, according to this author, now that the facts about the election fraud are starting to come out, along with the risks of vaccinating kids facing almost non existent risk from the disease. In the end, their reputation for any semblance of honesty will be in shreds. But not everyone is going to die. Indeed, the only thing that is going to continue to die is their reputation."
Louis writes:
"You're right. That was a difficult paragraph to slog through. I thought of that Saturday Night Live skit where Chevy Chase was portraying Gerald Ford in the Presidential debate and he said, "It was my understanding there would be no math.""
Skeptical Voter writes:
"Color me a skeptic. For at least the last five years when I hear or see the words “conspiracy theory” “disinformation” “misinformation” or even “Fake News” as uttered by the Bad Orange Man, I get a distinct whiff of the barnyard. Objective truth (to the extent that it actually exists, and I’m not sure of that) is a fugitive when those words are uttered."
Temujin — responding to my putting up his last comment — writes:
"I'm wondering if by posting my comments on the vaccine, you'll get a warning from Blogger."
I was considering putting that up and taking down the comment...
Balfegor writes:
"I think this Kaiser survey (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-profile-of-the-unvaccinated/) provides some helpful/corrective context for the analysis Enten is trying to present. This is all as of May, but I would expect that other than some decrease in the proportion who plan to get vaccinated but haven't got around to it yet, the results mostly hold today as well.
"They break down the unvaccinated into multiple groups (those who plan to get vaccinated, those who plan to "wait and see," and those who definitely won't get vaccinated). The "definitely won't" group is overwhelmingly Republican-leaning at 67% (vs 12% Democrat and 21% neutral), but it's also only 13% of the overall adult population. In other words, we're talking about a little less than 9% of the total adult population being Republican partisans (including leaners) who are categorically opposed to getting the vaccine. Is it enough to matter? Sure, but the way commentators talk about them you'd think Republican holdouts were the main obstacle to herd immunity. They aren't.
"Meanwhile, the persuadable "wait and see" group (12% of the adult population) is 41% Democrat, 39% Republican, and 20% neutral (and 51% non-White, for what it's worth). Both the "wait and see" and "definitely not" group are apparently seriously concerned that the vaccine is not as safe as the pharma companies and the government have claimed (78% and 84% respectively). That's not necessarily a "conspiracy theory" -- rather, it reflects distrust of the institutions pushing vaccination. Notably, only 44% of the wait and see group would become comfortable if the FDA gave full approval -- a majority of the persuadables evidently lack confidence in the FDA. Maybe some of that is because the respondents really do think the vaccine is being used to implant nanochips or 5g receivers or whatever, but I suspect that's a minority position, and concentrated in the 13% who are actually firmly opposed to vaccination.
"The path to persuading the persuadables isn't going to involve hyperventilating about Republicans who don't want to get vaccinated, berating the unvaccinated for being "selfish", or mass censorship of anti-vax discussion on social media. That sort of nonsense will just increase skepticism (and with good reason). Heavy handed mandates and exclusionary policies will have some effect, but they'll only further erode trust when the next pandemic comes around. Instead, the government and public health institutions ought to step back and think about what they need to do to restore trust. But that would, unfortunately, require a humility they can no longer muster."
donotwant writes:
"I wonder, does Enten preface "think" and "believe" with "falsely" when discussing Covid lab leak theory, Hunter's laptops, and Russian collusion? (or any #blueanon stuff)."
Louise B writes:
"There is another reason some people are not getting vaccinated. Those who are staunchly pro-life. The vaccines were developed using cell lines created from aborted babies. (This is a fact that was in the mainstream news media so stating this should not be "misinformation.") As a pro-life person, I am not taking a vaccine developed under those conditions. And don't assume that everyone who is pro-life is Catholic and listens to the pope."
I'm seeing this explanation:
"Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, creating fetal cell lines. Current fetal cell lines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. They do not contain any tissue from a fetus.... When it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved for emergency use, neither the Pfizer nor Moderna vaccines used fetal cell lines during the development or production phases. (So, no fetal cell lines were used to manufacture the vaccine, and they are not inside the injection you receive from your doctor.) However, both companies used the fetal cell line HEK 293 in the confirmation phase to ensure the vaccines work."
Bob Boyd writes:
"There has to be a "deadly threat" to justify using the weapons of the war on terror against American citizens...which is what this is all about.
"It's going to be interesting to see who supports it and who doesn't."
JPS writes:
'm late to this post and you've had quite a few good comments on it. But I have to take issue with this:
"we're a 50-50 country when it comes to belief in science."
The hell we are. This isn't analysis by Enten, it's political sloganeering, with the names omitted, from this supposedly scrupulous nonpartisan.
I'd suggest that well north of 90% of the country "believes in science," whatever that actually means. Within this massive majority, a lot of people are entirely ready to accept scientific findings they find congenial, and to doubt those that don't. I grow weary of people on the left suggesting that only the right does this.
Nowhere near 50% of the country, and probably not that large a fraction of scientists, have trained themselves to be more skeptical of a result the more they like its implications.
Post a Comment