Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated


el midgetron

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

Hopefully alot of those people don't actually want to do that but just want to give the FU response when answering the poll....

Locking people in their houses is absolutely not acceptable 

I haven't looked deep into it, but we would need to know how the questions were asked.   You could skew the answers if you ask in a certain way.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You take a risk if you get vaccinated.

You take a risk if you refuse vaccination.

 

All life is risk managemant, driving your car is a risk.  Eating chicken is a risk. 

In fact, life is the leading cause of death.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s healthy and wise to view poll number with some skepticism. I rarely post them for that reason. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, godnodog said:


I, so far, have not seen any consensus or tendence on the medical community to push for mandatory vaccination.

That's good to hear. I don't like forcing patients to take medication and I won't do it.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Yes. I would be equally horrified and ashamed that anyone would consider coercing their fellow citizens.

Awesome.

But what about those on here from Germany, Australia and other places where people are being excluded, isolated, kept away from their children and prevented from working, accessing public places and meeting politicians?

There are dozens of members here who excuse these abuses of power because they are scared and want the "safety" from covid that a police state brings to elevate their mental stress.

Any message for them? They appear to be a majority opinion in these countries

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Myles said:

I haven't looked deep into it, but we would need to know how the questions were asked.   You could skew the answers if you ask in a certain way.  

Don't assume it cant happen in America. Potentially, these democratic voters polled have just been speaking with their overseas friends where these policies are actually being implemented to the detriment of many citizens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Awesome.

But what about those on here from Germany, Australia and other places where people are being excluded, isolated, kept away from their children and prevented from working, accessing public places and meeting politicians?

There are dozens of members here who excuse these abuses of power because they are scared and want the "safety" from covid that a police state brings to elevate their mental stress.

Any message for them? They appear to be a majority opinion in these countries

As long as vaccine deniers wear a mask, and get tested regularly, they can go anywhere they want, in my opinion. That's the reason why Corona passports are smart.
In a restaurant a mask would be a problem, so if I was a visitor there, and unvaccinated people were allowed, I'd leave immediately. But I'd not demand the restaurant to change policy.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

If they want to know what democratic voters think, they need 1,000 democratic samples as a minimum. Appr. 300 does not cut it.

If you have three subsamples of a 1016 randomized sample, then the ratio of 300/1016 should be really close to the ratio that group occupies in the population.

Dividing a large sample into smaller randomized groups is called stratified sampling and is a valid statistical technique that cuts your costs.  The objective here is to obtain an accurate figure for the population, not for the subsample.

However, a sample of 300 should allow you to get within 2 or 3% of the real figure.

 

The problems are not in the statistics or sample size.  They are in the poll's questions and the way they were probably presented.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

I think it’s healthy and wise to view poll number with some skepticism. I rarely post them for that reason. 

With as many pitfalls as polling has, that's a good idea.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

As long as vaccine deniers wear a mask, and get tested regularly, they can go anywhere they want, in my opinion. That's the reason why Corona passports are smart.
In a restaurant a mask would be a problem, so if I was a visitor there, and unvaccinated people were allowed, I'd leave immediately. But I'd not demand the restaurant to change policy.

So you support voluntary covid papers/passports/government issued ID, but not mandatory covid passports?

I would really love to have the option to go to a bar with my unvaccinated friends. They aren't any risk to me unless they have covid. Even then the risk is literally 0.01% for my age and weight range.

Having a government enforce discrimination is scary. I live under it. I am surrounded by covid nazi's who would report me to the authorities if they thought i was breaching some of the restrictions.

Compare what the Prime minister of New Zealand said about unvaccinated people compared to multiple statements from the japanese government:

 

Imagine saying that with a BIG SMILE on your face. Sick. Now from Japan:

Quote

Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated

and

Quote

“Vaccines will never be administered without the recipient’s consent,” the statement reads. “We urge the public never to coerce vaccinations at the workplace or upon others around them, and never to treat those who have not received the vaccine in a discriminatory manner.”

https://www.rebelnews.com/japanese_government_dont_discriminate_against_the_unvaccinated

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Don't assume it cant happen in America. Potentially, these democratic voters polled have just been speaking with their overseas friends where these policies are actually being implemented to the detriment of many citizens.

That's the thing.   This poll could potentially be correct.   But it also may not be.   We'd have to hear one of the phone calls or at least see the transcript.  

Do you think the government should support unvaccinated people with covid to stay at home? - Yes, I guess.

Do you think the government should forcefully confine unvaccinated people to their homes at all times? - Heck no! 

 

The wording of questions will get different results.  

Edited by Myles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rashore said:

I always have to take polls with a grain of salt. Around 300 likely voters, and it gets headlined like it is all Democrats. Or at least this time that's getting headlined. I have seen other polls where a huge segment gets broad-brushed, it's not always Democrats. It is kind of nice that with a thousand randomly selected land lines and internet panel requests, the demographic ended up so neatly at about a third each of Democrat, Republican, and Other affiliations. 

It was 1016 likely voters: 011321-Crosstabs-Heartland-COVID-Jan-5-2022.xlsx (live.com)

I find it amusing that people that identify as "Conservatives" were twice as likely as those that identified as "Republican" in many cases to agree with the same thing.

21% of Conservatives favor imprisoning people who question the vaccine. 22% of Conservatives are in favor of tracking the unvaccinated. 15% of Conservatives favor removing children from their parents.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Myles said:

That's the thing.   This poll could potentially be correct.   But it also may not be.   We'd have to hear one of the phone calls or at least see the transcript.  

Do you think the government should support unvaccinated people with covid to stay at home? - Yes, I guess.

Do you think the government should forcefully confine unvaccinated people to their homes at all times? - Heck no! 

 

The wording of questions will get different results.  

These questions aren't even similar. In one scenario the person has covid. In the other, they don't. So you could support either and oppose either without any impact on the outcome.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

It was 1016 likely voters: 011321-Crosstabs-Heartland-COVID-Jan-5-2022.xlsx (live.com)

I find it amusing that people that identify as "Conservatives" were twice as likely as those that identified as "Republican" in many cases to agree with the same thing.

21% of Conservatives favor imprisoning people who question the vaccine. 22% of Conservatives are in favor of tracking the unvaccinated. 15% of Conservatives favor removing children from their parents.

1016 total polled, a third of which identified as Democrat. Around 300 (355 really), and the headline reads like it's all Democrats. A broad brushing. Same sort of thing happens on the regular with the spooky threads. Americans/Brits/whomever believe in angels/demons/ghosts/Elvis is alive- but its split down to a percent of a small sampling. 

Or from the OP "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."  With a headline of "Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated". Makes it sound like a lot considering there are millions of American likely voters. In the poll there were 1016, 355 were marked as Democrat. The report opted to take two poll answers of strongly favor (35%) and somewhat favor (24%), to make a total of 59% percent of Democratic voters would favor. 209 people. 

It's why I take polls with a grain of salt, especially when they are supposed to represent huge amounts of people. I don't think the samples are usually large enough to actually represent entire groups that get broad brushed. Especially with the way the media plays the polls reports. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, rashore said:

1016 total polled, a third of which identified as Democrat. Around 300 (355 really), and the headline reads like it's all Democrats. A broad brushing. Same sort of thing happens on the regular with the spooky threads. Americans/Brits/whomever believe in angels/demons/ghosts/Elvis is alive- but its split down to a percent of a small sampling. 

Or from the OP "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."  With a headline of "Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated". Makes it sound like a lot considering there are millions of American likely voters. In the poll there were 1016, 355 were marked as Democrat. The report opted to take two poll answers of strongly favor (35%) and somewhat favor (24%), to make a total of 59% percent of Democratic voters would favor. 209 people. 

It's why I take polls with a grain of salt, especially when they are supposed to represent huge amounts of people. I don't think the samples are usually large enough to actually represent entire groups that get broad brushed. Especially with the way the media plays the polls reports. 

Oh, I totally agree with you.  It's why I posted the same for conservatives off that poll.  The way it the article is worded makes the US seem like an autocratic police state and I am sure that is by design.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zep73 said:

You can't judge half a nation based on 1,016 survey participants. It only has half the minimum participants needed to be representative.

 

A group of 1,000 is about the right number

Quote

This advice is for:

  • Basic surveys such as feedback forms, needs assessments, opinion surveys, etc. conducted as part of a program.

https://tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/

Quote

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

 

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, rashore said:

1016 total polled, a third of which identified as Democrat. Around 300 (355 really), and the headline reads like it's all Democrats. A broad brushing. Same sort of thing happens on the regular with the spooky threads. Americans/Brits/whomever believe in angels/demons/ghosts/Elvis is alive- but its split down to a percent of a small sampling. 

Or from the OP "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."  With a headline of "Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated". Makes it sound like a lot considering there are millions of American likely voters. In the poll there were 1016, 355 were marked as Democrat. The report opted to take two poll answers of strongly favor (35%) and somewhat favor (24%), to make a total of 59% percent of Democratic voters would favor. 209 people. 

It's why I take polls with a grain of salt, especially when they are supposed to represent huge amounts of people. I don't think the samples are usually large enough to actually represent entire groups that get broad brushed. Especially with the way the media plays the polls reports. 

Why doubt this poll? 

In other countries (western democracies) these views are mainstream.

England, Germany, Australia, ETC have populations that (if you believe the polls around government policies) have over 70% approval when it comes to discriminating against the unvaccinated.

 

Is it that much of a stretch to think 49% of democrats believe the same? The poll probably has a 4-6% margin of error due to the small sample size, but that means we can say with 99% certainty that between 43 and 56% of self proclaimed democrat voters would respond the same

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Why doubt this poll? 

Not just this poll-I take all polls with a grain of salt. I also take the way the media can relay the poll information with a grain of salt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

A group of 1,000 is about the right number

https://tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/

 

No comment in regards to the post you quoted from Zep? Just the bold bit please?

 

Quote

You can't judge half a nation based on 1,016 survey participants. It only has half the minimum participants needed to be representative.

BTW, I am left-ish, and strongly against any kind of vaccine coercion. It's crazy to even consider it!

In your opinion is it crazy to coerce the vaccine through discrimination?

I do know your opinion, i just want to see how you justify to yourself your agreement with coercion and discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rashore said:

Not just this poll-I take all polls with a grain of salt. I also take the way the media can relay the poll information with a grain of salt. 

And the real world examples discriminatory policies being supported by the majority of the population? Like NZ, Australia, etc?

Do you doubt the polls from Australia that say 70% of the people polled support lockdowns, mandatory vaccine passports, removing rights for unvaccinated?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

No comment in regards to the post you quoted from Zep? Just the bold bit please?

 

In your opinion is it crazy to coerce the vaccine through discrimination?

I do know your opinion, i just want to see how you justify to yourself your agreement with coercion and discrimination.

Hugh, you rarely demonstrate you know anything.  I commented on something I wanted to comment on.

This discrimination you are asserting is the same as the "Gay Cake" question.  If you want your "gay cake" you are free to vote with your dollar.

The advice from Industrial Relations authorities is to exercise caution.  I've presented business practices and asked where the boundaries are when applied to utilitarian workplace.  You just act as a lap dog motivated by identity politics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, quiXilver said:

You take a risk if you get vaccinated.

You take a risk if you refuse vaccination.

 

All life is risk managemant, driving your car is a risk.  Eating chicken is a risk. 

In fact, life is the leading cause of death.

So, do you take the bigger risk, or the smaller one?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

If you have three subsamples of a 1016 randomized sample, then the ratio of 300/1016 should be really close to the ratio that group occupies in the population.

Dividing a large sample into smaller randomized groups is called stratified sampling and is a valid statistical technique that cuts your costs.  The objective here is to obtain an accurate figure for the population, not for the subsample.

However, a sample of 300 should allow you to get within 2 or 3% of the real figure.

 

The problems are not in the statistics or sample size.  They are in the poll's questions and the way they were probably presented.

Doug

I agree with you, partly. The real problem here is the headline and conclusion. You can't draw one with 300 participants.

 

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

A group of 1,000 is about the right number

Not if you headline what a majority of 300 answered. If you want to make a conclusion that Group A has this opinion, you must get minimum 1,000 from that group to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I agree with you, partly. The real problem here is the headline and conclusion. You can't draw one with 300 participants.

 

Not if you headline what a majority of 300 answered. If you want to make a conclusion that Group A has this opinion, you must get minimum 1,000 from that group to answer.

Sample sizes well below 300 are routinely used in scientific investigations.  In dendrochronology we want at least 30 sample trees in our chronology.  Fifty to 100 is better and there are a few chronologies with 400+ samples.  The minimum number for archiving in the national database is 10.

A 30-tree minimum is to get away from distortions caused by small sample size.

If you have really large numbers, like 38,000 weather observations, you really don't need statistics.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

So you support voluntary covid papers/passports/government issued ID, but not mandatory covid passports?
Correct, but some countries with hospital capacity crises may be forced to take drastic steps to save lives. I reluctantly condone that in emergency situations.

I would really love to have the option to go to a bar with my unvaccinated friends. They aren't any risk to me unless they have covid. Even then the risk is literally 0.01% for my age and weight range.
Risk assessment can only be approximate. You could get sick and die from Omicron. So could one of your friends.

Having a government enforce discrimination is scary. I live under it. I am surrounded by covid nazi's who would report me to the authorities if they thought i was breaching some of the restrictions.
They are only doing it to save lives. Remember, they have a supervision that you lack.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.