Vaccine skepticism among Americans is widespread, The POLITICO Poll found, indicating that one of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s animating priorities is gaining traction.
Results from the March poll of 3,851 U.S. adults conducted by Public First show that a plurality of Americans question the safety of vaccines, support reducing the number administered and believe that people’s right to decide what they put in their bodies is more important than preventing the spread of disease.
So…More Americans stupid than not
Hoping senior I can get revacinnated for measles and chickenpox with all these unvaccinated idiots and their spawn buzzing around now. Had shingles in my 50s, not interested in repeating that
Anyone that got a MMR before 1989 absolutely should get their immunities tested, they changed the vaccine regiment that year, I went and got checked shortly after the idiots we’re sworn in and my immunity to mumps had lapsed and my doctor insisted I get the first round that day.
I would think your doctor would be fine with that. I know that when I went to get a tetanus booster a couple decades ago, the nurse at CVS wanted me to get a DPT booster. I said, “Wait, diphtheria is coming back??” She said, “No, pertussis.” I said, “Gimme the shot.”
More people die by stupid
I trust ones before 2024 but going forward with kennedy and trumps firing of kowledgable folks I am not sure. will go by european agencies.
hopefully more states will do this:
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5833022-maryland-decouples-from-federal-vaccine-panel/
oh now that I think about it I think my state did something like this.
it is damaging to question it
I think this phrasing is pretty key. Some people equate “question” to “doubt” and some view it as more “inquire to better understand” and without that being more clearly stated, I’m hesitant to bash the group in the “neither” group. I think it could feasibly indicate they believe it’s neither damaging to enforce or question vaccines (e.g., they want everyone to be informed and vaccinated).
Fuck that whole top group though.
Place your bets. Roll the Darwin Dice.
Removed by mod
This shit again?
Take a Stats 101 course before complaining about sample sizes.
Stats 102 will tell you that any sampling collected in March is biased and unusable. May is the only time to poll if you want the real numbers.
when you’re talking to antivaxxers, you can’t expect knowledge, logic, reason, facts, evidence, expert opinion, medical science consensus, or anything else that supports the safety of vaccines to be a factor in anything they say
I like how you (and me, if we’re being honest) think he’s an antivaxxer, and then he turned around and accused me of being an antivaxxer.
oops. looks like antivaxxers aren’t the only morons around
also, yes this shit again - we all know you antivaxxers hate rigorous applications of mathematics and basic logic
It’s adorable how wrong you are in your righteous indignation.
Removed by mod
It’s like you don’t understand the concept of context. Can you process more than one word at a time?
Removed by mod
statistical significance against sample size is only relevant in unbiased sampling and there is no mention of their methods. this is a literal joke of a conclusion
None of which was mentioned in your initial complaint.
From the article
The poll was conducted by Public First from Mar. 13 to 18, surveying 3,851 U.S. adults online. Results were weighted by age, race, gender, geography and educational attainment. The overall margin of sampling error is ±1.6 percentage points. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error. Source: The POLITICO Poll with Public First
You want to criticize their methodology, go for it. But just whining about sample size makes you look like a an idiot.
man i love to be right
I’m sure you do.
On the rare occasions when you get to enjoy it.
This, however, isn’t one of them.
It it the methodology or the sample size you’re criticizing? I looked for any details of the poll’s methodology and couldn’t find much, which is a bit dubious, but the sample size seems fine all else being equal.
How is that relevant? Do you think that the sample size is too small? Do you think that people are more skeptical of vaccines in March than at other times of the year?
Maybe they think that it’s too hard to tally up 3851 responses for an article that quickly.
1200 interviews would have been statistically convincing, and it’s threefold.
where are they sampled from? this number is not convincing enough with no insight into their methods. you can sample 4k people from different regions and get different results everytime. sampling 4k people and saying it is representative of the entire country is a fucking joke
No, not if the sample methodology is sound, that’s an ample sample. Yes, ask about the methodology, but harping on the number of interviewees is naiive.
