(HULK)
(Smash)
This is a direct link to the study. No media bias, just the study. Take a look and share your thoughts.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Excess Death Rates in Florida and Ohio by Political Party in the Time of Covid (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter (HULK)
- Start date
This is a direct link to the study. No media bias, just the study. Take a look and share your thoughts.
(HULK)
(Smash)
That was technically true, but probably not due to the way people voted rather, due to the choices people made about vaccination.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Now do NY.
and why just OH and FL? Weird. Almost as if they were cherry-picking so they could get to a specific and prescribed outcome.
(HULK)
(Smash)
I didn't do the study. I'd love to see it in some other states as well.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
My thoughts are the taxpayers funded a study like this?
timschochet
Footballguy
If the result of the study is that vaccinated people died less, and that the decision of whether or not to vaccinate broke along political and ideological lines, then in terms of future public health issues this was absolutely a worthy study for the taxpayers to finance.
McBokonon
Footballguy
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Tobin Center for Economic Policy at Yale University and the Yale School of Public Health COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Fund.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Replicated many times over now. The more likely someone was/is to vote for Trump the more likely they were/are to die of Coronavirus. There's data for the whole country at the county level.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
I guess.
The USA averages over 100,000 drug overdose deaths a year. Would like to see how that breaks down along political lines as well. Just for future reference.
I get that one is a contracted virus and the other self inflicted but it would be interesting.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Please link these studies if you can. Thanks.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
their body, their choice
McBokonon
Footballguy
It would be. That would be a great topic for a separate thread. Bringing it up here, though, feels like an attempt to change the subject, deflect, or introduce a “both sides” argument because you don’t like the implication of the study in the original post. Maybe that’s not your intent, but that’s how it reads.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Like I said, there's a million of these. They all have a slightly different angle, but the results are the same.
This one shows how dramatic the difference is post-vaccine.
This one shows how dramatic the difference is post-vaccine.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
My intent is if they are studying deaths should 100k+ deaths a year, every year be worth the same type of study? Should we know if political ties could be a reason? I have no idea what way it would lean but it would be interesting.
quick-hands
Footballguy
who funded it?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
If this is really a sincere question, there are studies out there on the topic. I've never dove into them very deeply. But I did a quick Google to refresh my memory and there is a 2018 study that shows a higher incidence of opioid addiction and usage among republican counties, as just one example.
The inherent problem such as it is though, is going to be the fact that generally speaking, drug overdose deaths are just as much a class issue in broad terms as they are anything else. So without digging more deeply then I have, I would assume fairly confidently that all of the metrics are higher in lower income, lower educated, lower housing a food stability areas. So, do those areas fall into red or blue variants. There are studies on that too.
massraider
Footballguy
Someone made a study to confirm what was already known.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Yale I think
BladeRunner
Footballguy
I'd like to see a study of how many people who get away with ####### in the streets are drug users, but only in cities that begin with 'S' and are on the West Coast. It would be interesting to see how that breaks up along political lines.
Not cherry-picking at all. Really. It's a valid study to help confirm my preconceived bias. It's cool because then I can point to this same study and say, "See? Democrats allow drug users to **** all over their streets".
Not cherry-picking at all. Really. It's a valid study to help confirm my preconceived bias. It's cool because then I can point to this same study and say, "See? Democrats allow drug users to **** all over their streets".
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
This is the correct type of question to ask when going over study results, especially when it's something so specific to the study design, in this case "OH and FL". The authors did address this:
This study is based on an individual person level dataset constructed by the authors. In other words, thinking about what an Excel spreadsheet looks like, the data for this study has one row per person in a datasheet. They used the voter rolls from OH and FL because those are apparently publicly available at the individual person level (which seems crazy to me). They likely used SAS or SPSS, not Excel, to create the individual person level dataset because those software packages can run the linear regression statistics cited in the study. The resulting dataset probably has around 20 million rows or so (rounding here but that's the idea).
Takeaways:
- This study seems like it was designed by the authors to show off that they are experts in statistics: creating individual level datasets, running statistical models, and interpreting the results. So they took something where it was going to be fairly obvious what the outcome was, and designed the study to show their expertise in those areas. Now, the study could have come back flat on them, but that was unlikely.
- This study probably didn't cost much at all to conduct, at all. It seems like they probably purchased the individual level death data, the other 3 datasets were publicly available (the two voter rolls and CDC data on vaccination by county). Create the dataset in the statistical software, run regressions on the variables, interpret the results. Done.
So I don't think this was designed as a study on politics, although it uses that subject, it's more of an academic paper for the authors to get published, to cite on their C.V., etc.
Having said all that, there's one hole I'd like to poke in this study. I usually favor statistics where results are stated as percentages and a difference or change in those percentages is noted, so statistics over anecdotes is one way to think of that concept. But in this case, I would have also liked to see an accompaniment of the raw numbers to see how many deaths we're really talking about here. Yes, the percentage difference between groups is large enough to be statistically significant, we all probably realize that. But how many raw deaths are we talking about here? That's more central to the political question, not the academic question, IMO. (Please don't think of me a a ghoul, I understand all deaths and people are important, but we got through it, I think most here know I'm not insensitive to that point.)
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
I tend to agree. It seems like the authors chose a subject where there was going to be a statistically significant difference between two groups, and they designed a study around that to demonstrate their statistical chops.
That's why I poke a hole in these results not including the raw number of deaths. From a political standpoint, that's a more central question IMO. I have my suspicions that raw number isn't as wide between the two groups as some might think, or want to think.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I guess that's a way to take it.
More likely, they were less likely to get a lot of anti-covid vax messaging?
djmich
Footballguy
For sure and I think there’s a fundamental difference in how they think as well. Not necessarily good or bad, but in this case taking for many people unnecessary risk.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Before covid, damn near every anti-vax person I've ever encountered was more the hippy/holisitic/liberal type. IMO this wasn't a change in fundamental thinking, this was way more a function of it turning political right away, and then most of the info in the media/SM filtering through that.
djmich
Footballguy
I think for most people this is true.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Sure...just don't then blame Biden as you have.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
It was close to 50/50 in 2020. Trump won 65+ by a point or two IIRC.
Nowhere near enough to move the needle at the scale.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Of course, which is why questions to people like "if you trusted your Dr up to this point and took all the other vaxxes, why is this different??" were valid. Imo it was way more to do with immediate politicalization of the pandemic and the differences in people's media than it did with people's principles about vaccines and science.
I get the nuts who never took vaccines not taking them, I didn't expect the stark R/L devide on the issue and people turning on that particular vaccine so much.
djmich
Footballguy
Yah listen I agree it became politicized, but I don’t think you can just fold this completely under people trusted their doctor before and this should have been like everything else and if it wasn’t it was political. The vaccine was rushed, there was and still is good reason to not blindly trust. They didn’t get everything right about the vaccine.
Fortunately they got it more right than wrong. But politics aside I never will and never would blindly trust anybody…and that was the expectation of those pushing the vaccine. Maybe that’s political, but at the end of the day nobody is responsible for your health other than you.
I had the same question, and the study did note that they controlled for age in the analysis.
the study, and the crickets in response to your posting it, are interesting.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Correct. Anti-vax was hippy dippy crystal using far out man lefties until it became a situation of Trump not wanting to look bad for doing nothing other than banning travel from China and saying it'll magically be gone by Easter and suddenly righties are taken horse dewormer, dying from taking aquarium cleaner, and doing everything they can to not wear masks or get vaccines.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I still don't buy this as much as you. I would more if it wasn't also the vast majority of specialists, GPs, etc.. that were also saying that taking the vaccine was the safer move and the correct thing in most cases. Then you would have more of a point. I get what you are saying and I am not advocating for "blindly following" anybody, but usually when it comes to medical decisions I would guess if people had questions in the past about it, they would consult medical professionals - and everything that I read had the vast majority siding with taking the vaccine.
So, my theory is if there was a group who was largely against taking the vaccine, they were either not consulting medical professional (or just seeking out the one that didn't recommendtaking the vax .) and/or they were largely getting fed different info than the other group.
Last edited:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
ActionJackson68
Footballguy
I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that Republicans were less likely to take the vaccines. We know for a fact that folks who didn't take the vaccine made up a very disproportionate percentage of Covid deaths. Therefore it makes sense that Republicans are overrepresented in excess deaths.
rustycolts
Footballguy
So do I die from covid if I'm N.P.A.? Just wondering . My wife is Republican is she going to die from covid? We both voted Trump twice. Are we both going to die and then die again from covid when we are reincarnated?
(HULK)
(Smash)
You may already be dead*
*Potential deadness not valid in states other than Ohio and Florida
rustycolts
Footballguy
I SEE DEAD PEOPLE.
Similar threads
