Because she is comparing the vaccination rate of ALL residents of New York City to the vaccination rate of those 12 & up in Florida. This should be obvious --- even to the most simpleminded.
DeSantis for the win
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
Because she is comparing the vaccination rate of ALL residents of New York City to the vaccination rate of those 12 & up in Florida. This should be obvious --- even to the most simpleminded.
That's not at all what is happening. The 65% on the NY tab is all ages that can be vaccinated.
Which is the same thing. Even to the most simpleminded.
So just how days or hours back does a post need to be to be considered in the past.
Are the posts showing people being shipped to out of state hospitals in the past month consider to be to far in the past to be valid?
What about a post from two hours ago if it existed -- would this be considered invalid because it was too far in the past.
What complete absurd conjectures you post about time.
No, it is not. The NYC tab is for ALL RESIDENTS --- not only those who can be vaccinated.
And now he chooses to fuckup businesses as well...
DeSantis's health department will slap businesses with $5,000 fines if they request proof of vaccination
Gov. Ron DeSantis's administration is taking his war on vaccine mandates to a new level.
The Tampa Bay Times reports that a new Florida Department of Health rule will impose $5,000 fines on businesses, schools, and local governments that require proof of vaccination as a precondition for service.
What's more, the rule states that businesses can be fined up to $5,000 for each violation, meaning that a concert venue that requires vaccination proof for 10,000 attendees could theoretically be on the hook for a $50 million fine.
"Violators will be issued a notice of their infraction, and they'll have a chance to appeal their fines, the rule says," reports the Tampa Bay Times. "Once the fine is finalized, entities will have 30 days to pay it. The rule will go into effect Sept. 16."
I read through the data methodology.
Show how you can be certain of this.
I know this is an advanced concept for you. But in data analysis, when you are speaking to a set of a sub-population, you exclude the portion of the greater population where your information is not relevant. Otherwise its "apples to oranges".
If under 12 isn't able to be vaccinated, you wouldn't consider them in the greater percentage. It would be meaningless.
Right from the website:
\
Age Groups:
Data are reported for the following age groups per U.S. Census age categories: 10-12, 13-17, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+ years. Among people under 18, only those aged 12 to 17 years are currently eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. Interpret vaccination coverage for age groups that include people younger than 12 with caution. See here for more information on vaccine eligibility.
Data are reported for the following age groups per U.S. Census age categories: 10-12, 13-17, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+ years. Among people under 18, only those aged 12 to 17 years are currently eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. Interpret vaccination coverage for age groups that include people younger than 12 with caution. See here for more information on vaccine eligibility.
Last edited:
If your post references people be shipped to other states a week or more ago, then yes, it is in the past.
If you have something showing patients still being shipped, it is the present.
I understand that the "present" is a tough concept to someone who has trouble with complex thought.
Yes.. .that is the breakout of the underlying categories. The top total category in the table is for ALL RESIDENTS.
I know this is difficult for you to understand.
I have to issue a retraction on this. I downloaded the actual data and it would appear that they ARE (why I have no idea) including the total population of all ages in the data despite the fact that only 12 and older are able to be vaccinated.
Looking at the pivot I put together:
Shows the sum of 13-65+ being just under 7M, and the variance of 1.1M or so is consistent with the number of children that age according to NYC census data here.
So it would appear you are correct, GWB. Pushaw's tweet is inconsistent and not accurate.
My apologies.
What is difficult for me to understand is the why they would do this. As I've mentioned before, and you seem to not get, is when you consider the subset of a population - with one portion of the population unable to be considered you remove the portion that cannot be considered. You don't consider the # of Beagles as a percent of dogs and include cats.