A perpetual staple of statistical shenanigans are “studies” comparing one heterogeneous population with other, or with many other heterogeneous populations, where the researcher picks out one item among the myriad differences and then flashes his wee P at us, insisting this one difference is the cause of some terrible thing.
I am utterly shocked by the lack of rigor and common sense in this so-called "research." It's mind-boggling to think that these "authors" are willing to forever associate their names with what can only be described as some of the worst garbage ever produced in the academic realm. And JAMA? William's assessment hits the nail on the head—voters are individuals, not states, and let’s cross these two heterogeneous groups rendering these data utterly meaningless. Can you imagine the absurdity of these "researchers" discussing their nonsensical approach? "Let's cross (marginal distribution) VAERS adverse events by state political affiliation" – it's like a parody of statistical analysis that we see in a freshman statistics course, not in serious academic discourse. This kind of methodology is reminiscent of the well known freshman crossing broken necks with banana sales. Perhaps next, they'll claim we must ban bananas. Will this rubbish ever stop?
So I read through this "study," and I found myself oscillating between disbelief and outright laughter. Seriously, I've encountered more compelling analyses in freshman year assignments. The premise that Republicans report more adverse vaccine events than Democrats? That's a narrative begging for some semblance of context.
Consider this: what if, in a twist of statistical fate, all 12,501 adverse events reported in Wisconsin came exclusively from Democrats? The study gives us no clue of the political distribution among these reports. And what about the 10,548,224 COVID vaccines administered in Wisconsin. How many of those doses went into the arms of Republicans versus Democrats? Without this basic demographic breakdown, we're essentially navigating without a compass.
And let’s not forget Wisconsin is known for its political seesawing, understanding the vaccination rate among Republicans would be crucial. Yet, this study glosses over such critical nuances, presenting a narrative so disconnected from these fundamental questions that one can't help but wonder about the objective here. And JAMA accepted this crap?
I think I mistitled this post. Maybe "Researchers claim Republicans cried about the vax more"?
Something like that.
I am utterly shocked by the lack of rigor and common sense in this so-called "research." It's mind-boggling to think that these "authors" are willing to forever associate their names with what can only be described as some of the worst garbage ever produced in the academic realm. And JAMA? William's assessment hits the nail on the head—voters are individuals, not states, and let’s cross these two heterogeneous groups rendering these data utterly meaningless. Can you imagine the absurdity of these "researchers" discussing their nonsensical approach? "Let's cross (marginal distribution) VAERS adverse events by state political affiliation" – it's like a parody of statistical analysis that we see in a freshman statistics course, not in serious academic discourse. This kind of methodology is reminiscent of the well known freshman crossing broken necks with banana sales. Perhaps next, they'll claim we must ban bananas. Will this rubbish ever stop?
I think I know which states harbor the greatest proportion of those claiming to suffer from "long covid."
So I read through this "study," and I found myself oscillating between disbelief and outright laughter. Seriously, I've encountered more compelling analyses in freshman year assignments. The premise that Republicans report more adverse vaccine events than Democrats? That's a narrative begging for some semblance of context.
Consider this: what if, in a twist of statistical fate, all 12,501 adverse events reported in Wisconsin came exclusively from Democrats? The study gives us no clue of the political distribution among these reports. And what about the 10,548,224 COVID vaccines administered in Wisconsin. How many of those doses went into the arms of Republicans versus Democrats? Without this basic demographic breakdown, we're essentially navigating without a compass.
And let’s not forget Wisconsin is known for its political seesawing, understanding the vaccination rate among Republicans would be crucial. Yet, this study glosses over such critical nuances, presenting a narrative so disconnected from these fundamental questions that one can't help but wonder about the objective here. And JAMA accepted this crap?