Restaurants all over the US....worker shortage. Thanks, liberals!

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

Because the "poll" where they randomly ask people questions normally over a phone is different than hard data.  i.e. when you fill out a form before you get vaccinated.  I'm just saying as soon as I saw 76% of AA's were vaccinated it was clear as day your link was trash as all other hard data is nowhere even close to that.  

IIRC I filled out a small form before my vaccination.  Name, gender, race, age etc.  You know the normal stuff.  I don't recall if I had to write down who I voted for. 

It’s probably off but maybe not as much as you think.  I’m sure whites are still higher but MDC’s link only referred to the “adult” population.  Timmy’s link for example referred to the total population.  But for one blacks have a lower overall median age so probably have a higher % of people under 18 and thus even if a signicant % of the adult population is vaccinated it could still show as a smaller % of the total population.  Does anyone have a link for actual data on the racial breakdown of vaccinated adults?

Side note but I do find it weird that Baker Boy’s post got 3 “thank you’s” because he pointed out the challenges of survey data, but responded with a claim from...survey data.   Then again I probably shouldn’t be surprised due to the echo chamber in this place.

[jerryskids 5,192]

On 9/20/2021 at 2:59 PM, TimHauck said:

Link?

The only thing I saw on "advanced degrees" being hesitant was based on a facebook poll, and it was only referring to PhD's as being somewhat hesitant.  Those with Masters and MD's/JD's were not.   And the PhD data was later retracted due to the fact that they couldn't trust the self-reported data from facebook.  In addition, even the initial data still showed PhD's as being less hesitant than those living in areas with the 2 highest quartile Trump votes.

Hmm, couldn't trust self-reported data from PhDs... Were they too dumb to understand the questions?  Are PhDs pathological liars?  If you can't trust them, what self-reported data could you possibly ever trust? 

Like Ivermectin studies, it seems like ones that don't fit a certain narrative seem to get "retracted."   

[TimHauck 1,799]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Hmm, couldn't trust self-reported data from PhDs... Were they too dumb to understand the questions?  Are PhDs pathological liars?  If you can't trust them, what self-reported data could you possibly ever trust? 

Like Ivermectin studies, it seems like ones that don't fit a certain narrative seem to get "retracted."   

Sorry, they didn’t retract all of the PhD responses, just the ones that identified their gender as “prefer to self-describe” which included things like being a unicorn or an Apache helicopter.  That answer for gender was less than 1% of the total sample,  but 28% of those responses said they had a PhD (which was the highest education level listed).  They’re not saying PhD’s are liars...they’re saying they think people lied about having PhD’s.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v2.full-text

Regardless, my most recent point still stands.   You (not you skids) can’t say “lol your link is just a survey!!” and then...respond with a claim based on a survey.  I swear the GC seems like an alternate reality sometimes.