• SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you think? A whole voting block being told to not get vaccinated? To not wear masks? GOP politics MAY be to blame.

    • I’m sorry but it’s never fault of the conservatives or their leaders. Despite telling everybody else to take responsibility for their own lives and decisions conservatives have mastered the art of conspiracy so that they always have someone else to blame. In this case it’s those evil liberals in the “organized left” using reverse psychology.

      https://www.yahoo.com/video/breitbart-writer-claims-organized-left-124015633.html

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reddit used to have a whole separate called /r/HermanCainawards that posted COVID Darwin award winners.

      It was brutal but honestly the recipients all earned it.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was better at the beginning before they started requiring names and pfp to be covered in posts. Even if it was a celebrity. All the posts were from public social media pages. If someone is enough of a dumbass to broadcast their dangerous stupidity to the world, they they don’t deserve anonymity.

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So sad that Me-ma and Pop-Pop followed the advice of someone who told them the answer might be to inject bleach and shove a light bulb up their ass.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not just that. They distrust science and medicine in all things. These are fat, gullible people, in overall poor mental and physical health; exceptions have only skated by on dumb luck. If they didn’t believe the docs on virus prevention, they don’t believe them on obesity and lung disease prevention either. If they didn’t wear masks for COVID, they don’t wear them for spraying paint remover at their jobs.

      It’s industrial hygiene and physical and mental hygiene to which they are ignorant, personal hygiene, too. If they didn’t social distance to stop the spread, they dont wash their hands after taking a huge messy shit.

      • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve gone a bit overboard there and come off rather unhinged.

        I’m pretty sure the vast majority of conservatives have decent bathroom hygiene. Lol.

        • mookulator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not to mention the study confirmed that the two groups has similar mortality before covid and before the vaccines

        • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Decent? What makes you say that? If anything, conservative Americans at best would just have similar hygiene to non-conservative Americans. Which means poor. Because yall don’t wash your ass. You wipe it with a rag and don’t use a bidet. Just walking around with brown rings all day. No bidet-free culture has good bathroom hygiene!

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are we supposed to do at work or in public restrooms, use the bidet everyone else uses? No fucking way, let me keep the toilet paper and just shower daily.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The worst part is it looks suspiciously like a deliberate strategy. They told their base that deliberately not taking precautions “owns the libs”, that you should vote in person on Election Day without a mask. This creates a correlation between voting method and candidate, with mail-in votes being mostly Democratic. Then they simply attacked mail-in votes.

      Thankfully it ultimately didn’t work, but they were willing to kill their voters to try it.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I believe the quote goes, '‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs a woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party"

  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    As the article explains, the study in question is actually kind of weak in terms of providing solid proof that the excess deaths were attributable to COVID-19, but it’s apparently one in a growing number of studies that all have relatively weak “arrows” pointing in the same direction. So, the reason researchers view these studies as evidence that Republican messaging on vaccines is partially to blame is due to the collective body of evidence, not just this paper.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But that’s the thing about excess mortality during COVID, it was mostly due actual COVID

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        ??? Did you even read the article you posted?

        The study does not directly attribute the deaths to covid-19. Instead, excess mortality refers to the overall rate of deaths exceeding what would be expected from historical trends.

        The excess death rates between groups could be affected by other factors, such as differences in education, race, ethnicity, underlying conditions and access to health care, said Wallace, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health and the lead author.

        “We’re not saying that if you took someone’s political party affiliation and were to change it from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party that they would be more likely to die from covid-19,” Wallace said.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Excess deaths can be anything including say blood clots causing organ damage long after you had covid, because who knows what the long term effects were. So you didn’t die directly because of covid, but can easily be caused by covid (and not counted). That’s kind of why it’s measured. But you can also say excess deaths were from not having random doctors visits and randomly catching issues. So no one is willing to say much. But I think it’s pretty apparent that a disease that cause severe health issues is going to cause more than the direct deaths.

          • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Anecdotallly, we saw a LOT of this. I had a dialysis patient who survived Covid, but their quality of life was so poor they chose to stop dialysis. Another week recovered from Covid and collapsed their first day back to work with new onset cardiac problems. Another who had multiple hospitalizations for hypotension after a Covid episode when they had been stable on their cardiac meds for decades.

            None of those get counted as Covid deaths. They’re all “excess deaths”

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also excess deaths include deaths that likely wouldn’t have happened before COVID, but due to factors like overworked health care staff or shortage of supplies/medical beds because of COVID patients, happened anyway.

            In other words, people didn’t just die from COVID, some died from COVID existing.

          • Tedesche@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that was the case, but the point is the study doesn’t actually prove it and it admits that.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I understand the study’s basic methodology. It doesn’t change my point. And I don’t know that it’s never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn’t, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true.

                • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Weak compared to what?

      In my experience litigating medicolegal causation, this is the nature of epidemiology.

      Like, the standard isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt,” in my view, it’s “preponderance of the evidence,” aka “more likely than not.”

      More likely than not, the excess deaths were COVID. It’s like when the weather forecasts a 20% chance of rain. Weak, right? No. It’s a 100% chance of rain in 20% of the forecast area.

  • SpeakerToLampposts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Link to the actual study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617

    BTW, let me add a bit to the cautions about attributing the difference in death rates entirely to Republicans’ performative dumbshittery: older people are, in general, both more likely to be Republicans and more likely to die of COVID (and also other diseases that an overloaded medical system could otherwise have helped them with), so there’s a pretty obvious confounding variable here.

    On the other hand, that confounding variable applied just as much before the vacciles were available, and the difference in death rates doesn’t seem to have existed before that.

    On the gripping hand, I’d expect the similar difference in performative dumbshittery WRT masks to have been around before the vaccines came out, and to have caused a difference in death rates before vaccines… but it looks like not.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m quite confident that these researchers are capable of controlling for other demographic factors, since that’s like data analysis 101. Considering they state the results are stratified by age, why would you think age is a confounding variable? That comment doesn’t make sense to me.

      • mookulator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the commenter didn’t notice that the analysis controlled for age through stratification. You’re right that that confounding variable is taken care of.

        • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you’re right… it’s a little annoying because if I link to a study, I usually read it (or at least the results lol) and give a tl;dr. Even if you don’t do that, I’d hope you’d at least read what you’re sharing. If you’re going to give a commentary, at the bare minimum you should check your source to see if they addressed that.

          • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The only thing more annoying than a person who thinks that correlation is always indicative of causation is the person who thinks that correlation is never indicative of causation.

      • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Um actually this study is dog water because they forgot to count the numbers, obviously. I saw it on the title and clearly I know better

  • ExcursionInversion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The study examined the deaths of 538,139 people 25 years and older in Florida and Ohio”

    Would be interesting to see a nationwide study.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d imagine it’s representative. Both states are slightly redder than average ig

  • VexCatalyst@lemmy.astaluk.icu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gee, ya think?

    I know why studies with seemingly obvious results like this are conducted, (sometimes the obvious answer is wrong) but the waste of money still bugs me.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      A peer reviewed study (especially when the results are reproduced by another group performing the same experiments and receiving those same results) is the difference between science and anecdote.

      The irony is not lost on me that the study itself is of those that rejected completely separate scientific studies, and paid with their lives in doing so.

    • mookulator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sometimes the obvious answer is wrong, but there are plenty of other reasons to run this study. Advocacy is better with real numbers backing it up, there are probably similar circumstances that are less obvious that now warrant a closer look…

  • hmart316@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Insert YouDontSay.jpg meme here. Not giving op grief. Just can’t believe WaPo has to write out the obvious.