I did.PeroK said:If you were to produce some reliable data that related, say, vaccination status with voting at the previous round of elections, then that would be interesting and, in itself, apolitical.
The readers of this thread, the readers, not the mentors! (2 reports claiming "politics".)Vanadium 50 said:It was pulled. Apparently, not because it was wrong, but because it continued in a direction the Mentors didn't want it to go.
This view ignores the fact that the federalist system of the US places a lot of control over these measures into the hands of governors and state legislatures (especially because in many cases state governments have been able to override or limit local regulations). Blue congressional districts within red states will be different from blue congressional districts in blue states because they have different state-level policies and regulations governing them. For example, many blue vs red states have different regulations regarding vaccine mandates (e.g. at public schools and universities) and allocate different amounts of funding and effort to promote vaccination.Vanadium 50 said:Actually, while I think that's exactly what will happen, I don't think it's sound scientific thinking.
If one has the hypothesis that A is the primary cause of B, this should be at some level scale invariant. If I demonstrate a correlation (a necessary but not sufficient condition for causation) when I break down the population by US State, I should also see it if I break it down by county or congressional district (the advantage here is that they are closer in size than counties) or some other variable.
If B is an attitude ("vaccine reluctance" or its converse) it is hard to see how differences in policies dominantly driver this.Ygggdrasil said:This view ignores the fact