Partisanship Predicts Personal Response to Covid-19

[Milchshake]

Study reveals how political identity shape one's response to crisis.
The public response to the Covid Crisis in the United States is completely partisan in nature. Again, Identity Politics prevails.



That the politics of COVID-19 are partisan is perhaps not surprising given the condition of American politics, but that mass public health behavior is more consistently predicted by partisanship than by anything else we measured has profound and distressing implications for public health in the coming months.

[Grapemask]

It took my dumb brain a minute to realize I should read this horizontally instead of vertically, and it's even more horrifying that way.

If people want to know why this virus is spreading so rapidly, instead of all these weird theories we're batting around in the GenOT thread, this here pretty much shows exactly why.

40% of Americans are progressively becoming more and more distant from reality because of an insane media network. And now it will literally kill them. And they will never understand why or realize what the problem is.

[PC2]

The problem with generalizing groups of people is that you run into the correlation-causation problem. What we want is not group based 'predictions' but instead we want the 'explanations' for what causes the data to be that way. That way we can get to the root of the issue by attacking ideas(causes) and not people.

[Kaleredar]

The problem with generalizing groups of people is that you run into the correlation-causation problem. What we want is not group based 'predictions' but instead we want the 'explanations' for what causes the data to be that way. That way we can get to the root of the issue by attacking ideas(causes) and not people.

Okay, how about this.

The republican party has lead a decades-long crusade against the sciences and intelligentsia whilst sewing distrust in the media and supporting a bitterly partisan system that supports nationalism, xenophobia, and a cult of personality supporting the GOP as some sort of holy order. This has lead to individuals of the republican party who don't trust the words of scientists, don't believe in academics, don't believe the word of democratic leaders fearing that their surreptitiously trying to take down Trump, and believe the word of an inexperienced man-child over that of qualified experts to the point that it's become dangerous.

Thus leading to the paucity you see here.

Is that a succinct enough definition of "idea?"

[Shadowferal]

Someone posted this earlier (apologies to the uncredited); Thomas Massie is a monster Republicans created

Joining in bipartisan revulsion, former secretary of state John Kerry shared Trump’s tweet and added: “Congressman Massie has tested positive for being an a--hole. He must be quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.”

But if Republicans are disturbed by Massie, they might pause for self-reflection. Massie is the epitome of the anti-government culture they have nurtured and encouraged. He embodies the drain-the-swamp political philosophy they have embraced.

“I came here to make sure our Republic doesn’t die by unanimous consent in an empty chamber, and I request a recorded vote!” the bespectacled rebel said in his quickly-stifled stunt.

“Shut the f--- up,” Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) replied from the gallery, an ABC News journalist heard.

Massie has it backward. Unanimous consent doesn’t kill the Republic. Unanimity, or at least consensus, is what we need in Washington, and what we have lost. Massie and scores like him in the congressional GOP exist to break up consensus, to throw sand in the gears, to hobble government. Maybe Massie’s antics in this moment of national crisis will help Republicans remember that the government they’ve been demonizing is the only thing they have to save a collapsing national economy and stop a deadly disease.

Massie, a believer in the “deep state” conspiracy, is a product of the tea party, a protege of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and a collaborator with outgoing Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who is becoming Trump’s chief of staff, when they tried to oust then-Speaker John Boehner. “I’m ready to be unpopular,” Massie said after his 2012 election, and he has opposed even anti-lynching and human rights legislation — and celebrated when he uses “the process” so that “things die.”

He is emblematic of the newer Republicans who congressional scholars Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann say have turned the GOP into an “insurgent outlier," rewarding bomb-throwers and making compromise with Democrats all but impossible.

Republicans may be spared the question of what to do with Massie, who has a serious primary challenger. But what about all the other Massies in their ranks?

With luck, Massie’s ugly spectacle, and the exploding public health and economic crises, will cause Republicans to see the limits of their corrosive message that government is the enemy.

[Endus]

The problem with generalizing groups of people is that you run into the correlation-causation problem. What we want is not group based 'predictions' but instead we want the 'explanations' for what causes the data to be that way. That way we can get to the root of the issue by attacking ideas(causes) and not people.

This study doesn't do that. It specifically looks to identify trends to try and deduce an explanation for said trends. It makes no attempt to suggest any capacity for predicting anything about any particular individual, as should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a basic comprehension of statistical theory.

If I tell you 70% of the balls in a bag are red, that doesn't say the next ball you pull out will be red. Obviously. No "prediction" whatsoever; you're just engaging in your usual anti-science propaganda.

[PC2]

Okay, how about this.

The republican party has lead a decades-long crusade against the sciences and intelligentsia whilst sewing distrust in the media and supporting a bitterly partisan system that supports nationalism, xenophobia, and a cult of personality supporting the GOP as some sort of holy order. This has lead to individuals of the republican party who don't trust the words of scientists, don't believe in academics, don't believe the word of democratic leaders fearing that their surreptitiously trying to take down Trump, and believe the word of an inexperienced man-child over that of qualified experts to the point that it's become dangerous.

Thus leading to the paucity you see here.

Is that a succinct enough definition of "idea?"

That's slightly better than the raw data in the OP but it is still largely criticism that is directed towards people and/or groups as opposed to the bad ideas and inaccuracies held by the group. Explanations for data should also specifically relate to one of the behaviors or attitude parameters listed in the study. For example let's take the "washes hands more" parameter; one explanation for the observed data is that the "others" don't wash their hands enough because they have don't have enough knowledge of how germs work and thus they don't know why they should be motivated to wash their hands and they may not know of all the scenarios that trigger the need to wash their hands. Alternatively many of the 'others' could actually be washing their hands adequately while many 'Democrats' could have an over-active sense of how dirty their hands are and how often they should wash their hands. Which there can be "too much of a good thing" because if you wash your hands or use sanitizer too much you could cause dryness issues or weaken the skin biome which can end up making you more vulnerable to germs.

These are just a couple theories but the point is when we gather group data it ought to be a source of genuine inquiry about the explanations and not as an excuse to denigrate people with different behaviors and attitudes.

[Kaleredar]

That's slightly better than the raw data in the OP but it is still largely criticism that is directed towards people and/or groups as opposed to the bad ideas and inaccuracies held by the group. Explanations for data should also specifically relate to one of the behaviors or attitude parameters listed in the study. For example let's take the "washes hands more" parameter; one explanation for the observed data is that the "others" don't wash their hands enough because they have don't have enough knowledge of how germs work and thus they don't know why they should be motivated to wash their hands and they may not know of all the scenarios that trigger the need to wash their hands. Alternatively many of the 'others' could actually be washing their hands adequately while many 'Democrats' could have an over-active sense of how dirty their hands are and how often they should wash their hands. Which there can be "too much of a good thing" because if you wash your hands or use sanitizer too much you could cause dryness issues or weaken the skin biome which can end up making you more vulnerable to germs.

These are just a couple theories but the point is when we gather group data it ought to be a source of genuine inquiry about the explanations and not as an excuse to denigrate people with different behaviors and attitudes.

Or maybe they've consistently heard the danger of the virus downplayed, even attributed to it being a hoax, by a man they believe to be eminently qualified to speak on the matter despite him having zero qualifications to do so, and often doing so in direct violation to things said by actual doctors.


Their idea is that the coronavirus is not very dangerous. That's why they don't wash their hands as much or do any of those other things. Because they've been lead to believe that it's not really an issue.

[PC2]

It specifically looks to identify trends to try and deduce an explanation for said trends.

Great but there's no link leading to the explanations/analysis. Usually there's a link in the OP.

It makes no attempt to suggest any capacity for predicting anything about any particular individual,

Okay but they should change the title because it's very misleading when they start with "Partisanship Predicts Personal Response to Covid-19".

If I tell you 70% of the balls in a bag are red, that doesn't say the next ball you pull out will be red. Obviously. No "prediction" whatsoever; you're just engaging in your usual anti-science propaganda.

No, generalizing people and making correlation-causation assumptions is anti-science. Asking for the author to explain the data is pro-science.

[Endus]

Great but there's no link leading to the explanations/analysis. Usually there's a link in the OP.

There is a link in the OP (to a page about the forthcoming study, at least).

Okay but they should change the title because it's very misleading when they start with "Partisanship Predicts Personal Response to Covid-19".

This is you failing to grasp the English language, because that phrase does not mean what you seem to think it means.

It means they identified a statistical trend with partisanship strongly correlating with personal response to COVID-19. That's it. Anything more is something you are making up, as a straw man.

No, generalizing people and making correlation-causation assumptions is anti-science. Asking for the author to explain the data is pro-science.

There's no causative claim. And there's no generalization of individuals. You're making all this shit up, based on nothing but a failure to grasp statistical theory and scientific methodology.

[PC2]

There is a link in the OP (to a page about the forthcoming study, at least).

This is you failing to grasp the English language, because that phrase does not mean what you seem to think it means.

It means they identified a statistical trend with partisanship strongly correlating with personal response to COVID-19. That's it. Anything more is something you are making up, as a straw man.

There's no causative claim. And there's no generalization of individuals. You're making all this shit up, based on nothing but a failure to grasp statistical theory and scientific methodology.

Okay so this is what i'm criticizing, the data comes with no causative claims and explanation. If you want to post some data in a thread then that's a-okay, but don't get mad when people point out how worthless it is in the absence of causal explanations.

[Mihalik]

sip.

You are wasting your time. PC always argues in bad faith. I've have seen him argue two mutually contradictory things (both dumb) in the same thread within the span of a few hours just so he could do his typical bullshit contrarian Reich wing apologetics.

[PC2]

You are wasting your time. PC always argues in bad faith. I've have seen him argue two mutually contradictory things (both dumb) in the same thread within the span of a few hours just so he could do his typical bullshit contrarian Reich wing apologetics.

"Bad faith" means intent to deceive. I'm not trying to deceive you of anything...

You sound a bit paranoid.

[Endus]

Okay so this is what i'm criticizing, the data comes with no causative claims and explanation. If you want to post some data in a thread then that's a-okay, but don't get mad when people point out how worthless it is in the absence of causal explanations.

The lack of a causative relationship does not make it "worthless". You are, again, making up complete bullshit that flies in the face of basic methodology.

Your willful ignorance on basic principles of science does not actually refute anything; it just underscores that you have no interest in honest, informed discussion.

"Bad faith" means intent to deceive. I'm not trying to deceive you of anything...

You sound a bit paranoid.

Then what possible explanation do you have for repeating the same obvious untruths over and over, despite multiple users pointing out how completely irrational and counterfactual they are?

At a certain point, after dumping metric tons of evidence on a flat-earther, their refusal to give any of it due consideration is, itself, bad faith. They're not considering the facts, and demand that their uneducated opinion be given equal credence. And that's ridiculous. That's where you're at, here. Same territory as flat-earthers, and for exactly the same reasons.

[Themius]

"Bad faith" means intent to deceive. I'm not trying to deceive you of anything...

You sound a bit paranoid.

Did you simply google it and refuse to read further????

(in existentialist philosophy) refusal to confront facts or choices.

[PC2]

The lack of a causative relationship does not make it "worthless". You are, again, making up complete bullshit that flies in the face of basic methodology.

If there's no causal relationship then I don't see how the relationship matters or has any influence on the real world.

Your willful ignorance on basic principles of science does not actually refute anything; it just underscores that you have no interest in honest, informed discussion.

Then what possible explanation do you have for repeating the same obvious untruths over and over, despite multiple users pointing out how completely irrational and counterfactual they are?

At a certain point, after dumping metric tons of evidence on a flat-earther, their refusal to give any of it due consideration is, itself, bad faith. They're not considering the facts, and demand that their uneducated opinion be given equal credence. And that's ridiculous. That's where you're at, here. Same territory as flat-earthers, and for exactly the same reasons.

Okay? I'm not even making some big argument in this thread, all i'm doing is pointing out how there's meaning to data without explanations.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you simply google it and refuse to read further????

I'm not refusing any facts, i'm demanding that data is accompanied by explanations because there's not much to talk about with them.

[Endus]

If there's no causal relationship then I don't see how the relationship matters or has any influence on the real world.

Because this is how we identify causative relationships. If not with these factors, then with some other factor that contributes to both. This is the process. It doesn't make the information useless, like you're suggesting. That's bullshit.

Okay? I'm not even making some big argument in this thread, all i'm doing is pointing out how there's meaning to data without explanations.

You're arguing there is no meaning to data without a causative explanation. I assume that's just a typo.

Assuming that it is, and you're not reversing your entire argument, then what you're saying is wildly incorrect, so deeply so that it appears to be a form of deliberate misinformation intended to confuse other users and cast an unwarranted doubt on the information provided.

That's bad faith.

I'm not refusing any facts, i'm demanding that data is accompanied by explanations because there's not much to talk about with them.

You're literally refusing the facts in this study. That's what we're talking about, here.

And your demand is ridiculous and has no merit. The only response it deserves is a hearty "nah" and a recommendation that you lean some basic statistical theory rather than wasting everyone's time making these same mistakes, over and over again, and insisting that your error is a valid position.

It is not.

[Levelfive]

These are just a couple theories but the point is when we gather group data it ought to be a source of genuine inquiry about the explanations and not as an excuse to denigrate people with different behaviors and attitudes.

Apparently ad hominem impugning of character and motives is ok when you do it. I have noticed that here and in other threads your approach to science mirrors Trump's approach to the law: to treat it with what amounts to contempt, while unreservedly abusing and misusing what little you understand of it to hide behind and / or further an agenda.

[Spectral]

This certainly has been an interesting flip - under normal circumstances, conservatism correlates with stronger disgust reactions, aversion to disease, and authoritarianism. This time around, all of those reactions are associated with the broadly construed left; this seems international to me rather than just an American thing with Bolsonaro and Boris sharing the COVID-19 skepticism. Perhaps that's really just populism and rejection of institutional expertise though since we see the same thing from AmLo on the populist left in Mexico.

[Kaleredar]

This certainly has been an interesting flip - under normal circumstances, conservatism correlates with stronger disgust reactions, aversion to disease, and authoritarianism. This time around, all of those reactions are associated with the broadly construed left; this seems international to me rather than just an American thing with Bolsonaro and Boris sharing the COVID-19 skepticism. Perhaps that's really just populism and rejection of institutional expertise though since we see the same thing from AmLo on the populist left in Mexico.

Wow, a strawman holding a red herring standing behind a smokescreen. You don't see those very often.

So what we have is your perception of how the left acts... based on no data... reacting to some vague nothingness you're describing.

versus actual data backing up how the right wing is reacting to a real and present situation.


So you're conflating reality backed up by statistics and equating it with things you made up in your head in an attempt to... make the right wing look less bald-faced stupid than they statistically are being proving to be?