DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus What the Republicans Has Turned Into

Love ya bro

Back atchya Bud.

Can't find anything on the web that verifies this statement.

Source?

Meanwhile. . . Proof that the Deep State really does exist.

https://thehill.com/regulation/551755-ju...ng-disingenuous

Proof was posted, if you need more info try using google.

How to search on Google

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/134479?hl=en

How to Search on Google: 31 Google Advanced Search Tips

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/google-advanced-search-tips

Hope that helps!

Good for her! Investigate all the shady crap Trump's admin did. I want to see the transcripts of Trump's and Putin's private talks.

Typical s/a answer, what you lack in iq, you can always make up for in other ways

Where does it state that herd immunity is impossible and we'll have covid for years... get this... because of REPUBLICANS???


Seems scary...

Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe

Widely circulating coronavirus variants and persistent hesitancy about vaccines will keep the goal out of reach. The virus is here to stay, but vaccinating the most vulnerable may be enough to restore normalcy.

Early in the pandemic, when vaccines for the coronavirus were still just a glimmer on the horizon, the term “herd immunity” came to signify the endgame: the point when enough Americans would be protected from the virus so we could be rid of the pathogen and reclaim our lives.

Now, more than half of adults in the United States have been inoculated with at least one dose of a vaccine. But daily vaccination rates are slipping, and there is widespread consensus among scientists and public health experts that the herd immunity threshold is not attainable — at least not in the foreseeable future, and perhaps not ever.

Instead, they are coming to the conclusion that rather than making a long-promised exit, the virus will most likely become a manageable threat that will continue to circulate in the United States for years to come, still causing hospitalizations and deaths but in much smaller numbers.

How much smaller is uncertain and depends in part on how much of the nation, and the world, becomes vaccinated and how the coronavirus evolves. It is already clear, however, that the virus is changing too quickly, new variants are spreading too easily and vaccination is proceeding too slowly for herd immunity to be within reach anytime soon.

Continued immunizations, especially for people at highest risk because of age, exposure or health status, will be crucial to limiting the severity of outbreaks, if not their frequency, experts believe.

“The virus is unlikely to go away,” said Rustom Antia, an evolutionary biologist at Emory University in Atlanta. “But we want to do all we can to check that it’s likely to become a mild infection.”

The shift in outlook presents a new challenge for public health authorities. The drive for herd immunity — by the summer, some experts once thought possible — captured the imagination of large segments of the public. To say the goal will not be attained adds another “why bother” to the list of reasons that vaccine skeptics use to avoid being inoculated.

Yet vaccinations remain the key to transforming the virus into a controllable threat, experts said.

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Biden administration’s top adviser on Covid-19, acknowledged the shift in experts’ thinking.

“People were getting confused and thinking you’re never going to get the infections down until you reach this mystical level of herd immunity, whatever that number is,” he said.

“That’s why we stopped using herd immunity in the classic sense,” he added. “I’m saying: Forget that for a second. You vaccinate enough people, the infections are going to go down.”

Why reaching the threshold is tough

Once the novel coronavirus began to spread across the globe in early 2020, it became increasingly clear that the only way out of the pandemic would be for so many people to gain immunity — whether through natural infection or vaccination — that the virus would run out of people to infect. The concept of reaching herd immunity became the implicit goal in many countries, including the United States.

Early on, the target herd immunity threshold was estimated to be about 60 to 70 percent of the population. Most experts, including Dr. Fauci, expected that the United States would be able to reach it once vaccines were available.

But as vaccines were developed and distribution ramped up through the winter and into the spring, estimates of the threshold began to rise. That is because the initial calculations were based on the contagiousness of the original version of the virus. The predominant variant now circulating in the United States, called B.1.1.7 and first identified in Britain, is about 60 percent more transmissible.

As a result, experts now calculate the herd immunity threshold to be at least 80 percent. If even more contagious variants develop, or if scientists find that immunized people can still transmit the virus, the calculation will have to be revised upward again.

Polls show that about 30 percent of the U.S. population is still reluctant to be vaccinated. That number is expected to improve but probably not enough. “It is theoretically possible that we could get to about 90 percent vaccination coverage, but not super likely, I would say,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Though resistance to the vaccines is a main reason the United States is unlikely to reach herd immunity, it is not the only one.

Herd immunity is often described as a national target. But that is a hazy concept in a country this large.

“Disease transmission is local,” Dr. Lipsitch noted.

“If the coverage is 95 percent in the United States as a whole, but 70 percent in some small town, the virus doesn’t care,” he explained. “It will make its way around the small town.”

Uneven Willingness to Get Vaccinated Could Affect Herd Immunity

In some parts of the United States, inoculation rates may not reach the threshold needed to prevent the coronavirus from spreading easily.

Estimated share of adults who would

“definitely” or “probably” get the vaccine

(The darker the purple the more likely to be vaccinated.)

How insulated a particular region is from the coronavirus depends on a dizzying array of factors.

Herd immunity can fluctuate with “population crowding, human behavior, sanitation and all sorts of other things,” said Dr. David M. Morens, a virologist and senior adviser to Dr. Fauci. “The herd immunity for a wealthy neighborhood might be X, then you go into a crowded neighborhood one block away and it’s 10X.”

Given the degree of movement among regions, a small virus wave in a region with a low vaccination level can easily spill over into an area where a majority of the population is protected.

At the same time, the connectivity between countries, particularly as travel restrictions ease, emphasizes the urgency of protecting not just Americans but everyone in the world, said Natalie E. Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Any variants that arise in the world will eventually reach the United States, she noted.

Many parts of the world lag far behind the United States on vaccinations. Less than 2 percent of the people in India have been fully vaccinated, for example, and less than 1 percent in South Africa, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

“We will not achieve herd immunity as a country or a state or even as a city until we have enough immunity in the population as a whole,” said Lauren Ancel Meyers, the director of the Covid-19 Modeling Consortium at the University of Texas at Austin.

What the future may hold

If the herd immunity threshold is not attainable, what matters most is the rate of hospitalizations and deaths after pandemic restrictions are relaxed, experts believe.

By focusing on vaccinating the most vulnerable, the United States has already brought those numbers down sharply. If the vaccination levels of that group continue to rise, the expectation is that over time the coronavirus may become seasonal, like the flu, and affect mostly the young and healthy.

“What we want to do at the very least is get to a point where we have just really sporadic little flare-ups,” said Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “That would be a very sensible target in this country where we have an excellent vaccine and the ability to deliver it.”

Over the long term — a generation or two — the goal is to transition the new coronavirus to become more like its cousins that cause common colds. That would mean the first infection is early in childhood, and subsequent infections are mild because of partial protection, even if immunity wanes.

Some unknown proportion of people with mild cases may go on to experience debilitating symptoms for weeks or months — a syndrome called “long Covid” — but they are unlikely to overwhelm the health care system.

“The vast majority of the mortality and of the stress on the health care system comes from people with a few particular conditions, and especially people who are over 60,” Dr. Lipsitch said. “If we can protect those people against severe illness and death, then we will have turned Covid from a society disrupter to a regular infectious disease.”

If communities maintain vigilant testing and tracking, it may be possible to bring the number of new cases so low that health officials can identify any new introduction of the virus and immediately stifle a potential outbreak, said Bary Pradelski, an economist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble, France. He and his colleagues described this strategy in a paper published on Thursday in the scientific journal The Lancet.

“Eradication is, I think, impossible at this stage,” Dr. Pradelski said. “But you want local elimination.”

Vaccination is still the key

The endpoint has changed, but the most pressing challenge remains the same: persuading as many people as possible to get the shot.

Reaching a high level of immunity in the population “is not like winning a race,” Dr. Lipsitch said. “You have to then feed it. You have to keep vaccinating to stay above that threshold.”

Skepticism about the vaccines among many Americans and lack of access in some groups — homeless populations, migrant workers or some communities of color — make it a challenge to achieve that goal. Vaccine mandates would only make that stance worse, some experts believe.

A better approach would be for a trusted figure to address the root cause of the hesitancy — fear, mistrust, misconceptions, ease of access or a desire for more information, said Mary Politi, an expert in health decision making and health communication at Washington University in St. Louis.

People often need to see others in their social circle embracing something before they are willing to try it, Dr. Politi said. Emphasizing the benefits of vaccination to their lives, like seeing a family member or sending their children to school, might be more motivating than the nebulous idea of herd immunity.

“That would resonate with people more than this somewhat elusive concept that experts are still trying to figure out,” she added.

Though children spread the virus less efficiently than adults do, the experts all agreed that vaccinating children would also be important for keeping the number of Covid cases low. In the long term, the public health system will also need to account for babies, and for children and adults who age into a group with higher risk.

Unnerving scenarios remain on the path to this long-term vision.

Over time, if not enough people are protected, highly contagious variants may develop that can break through vaccine protection, land people in the hospital and put them at risk of death.

“That’s the nightmare scenario,” said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University.

How frequent and how severe those breakthrough infections are have the potential to determine whether the United States can keep hospitalizations and deaths low or if the country will find itself in a “mad scramble” every couple of years, he said.

“I think we’re going to be looking over our shoulders — or at least public health officials and infectious disease epidemiologists are going to be looking over their shoulders going: ‘All right, the variants out there — what are they doing? What are they capable of?” he said. “Maybe the general public can go back to not worrying about it so much, but we will have to.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html

That took 2 seconds and minimal google skills. You can do it! Just try.

I've read that and a few others... seems like the biggest reason to pull back on the concept of herd immunity is simple...


Too many variants and the experts being way off on calculations -- mostly because of the variants.

OR

Because of Republicans. Although I still can't find any articles on that.

We can all spread hate, who knows, maybe that will get rid of Covid? I'm sure you'll do your part -- keep up the great work.

Can't believe you own eyes or what?

Quoted by Andy Ngo

Funny, I think it's you.

You put your list together. Here's my list of the GOP fear mongering, off the top of my head:

Fear of immigrants. Fear of the immigrant caravan heading to the border.

Fear of Obama/Biden taking your guns away. Nothing... More gun and ammo sales in US history during Obama's terms.

Fear of big government. Reagan, Bush, Trump's governments all as big or bigger than any other.

Fear of Lawlessness. And yet it is Trump and Trump supporters promoting The Big Lie and insurrection.

Fear of Communism. Nothing on the American Political landscape even remotely resembles Communism. The Democrats in the USA are still way right of the most Left leaning countries in Europe - none of which are remotely communist.

Fear of the Press: They are the enemy of the people if they dare criticize the King. Meanwhile we had 8 years of the exact same negative spin on everything that was Obama.

Fear of cancel culture: Meanwhile GOP/Trump endorses cancelling ANYTHING that voices a contrary opinion: from Kaepernick to coke to embracing voter suppression laws.

Fear of social media: Claiming the Right is being silenced and restricted - meanwhile the GOP/Fox and right leaning topics are at the top of the most shared items on FB and Twitter.

Fear that Biden is a Socialist Puppet: And here we are with Biden engaging with the GOP and being more centrist than Trump or Obama.

Fear that Christianity / Religious freedom is under attack: Based on ... not much. Emotions? GOP is strong on emotion right now, very little fact.

Fearmongering is most definitely one of the things the GOP does really really well.

If you're going to make fun of people's Google skills, don't ask for people to mock your reading skills. If you're point to that article as evidence that GOP is the roadblock to herd immunity, you clearly didn't read the article.

Side note: if you're going to mock someone by linking to Google's how-to-search page, use this instead. www.lmgtfy.com

I suspect you looked at the map with the colors, noted which states were predominantly purple and which ones weren't. The map makes a decent argument, but the entire article went into detail on ALL OF THE OTHER FACTORS working against herd immunity.

1. Herd Immunity threshold increasing due to shifting transmissibility of variants
2. Availability of vaccines (quantity and authorization to a greater proportion of the population)
3. Vaccine hesitancy (NOT attributed to any 1 group, and we know there are several out there, including GOP)


But I would like to talk about the 1 reason that isn't called out in the article. Vaccine approval. I've said this I-don't-know-how-many-times on here already... we're pounding our fist over something that the FDA has not fully approved yet. The 'BUT IT'S SCIENCE' crowd is talking about shaming people that don't want to slam something into their arm that hasn't been approved yet by the proper authorities.

So similar to how you should've slowed down and read the article you linked, I think we should all slow down and let this process play out. If we're going to get all bent out of shape about people refusing to inject themselves with something, we should at least wait for the FDA to officially tell us it's safe to do so.

According to this over 200,000,000 million vaccines have been administered in our country.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect...9-vaccine-doses

The rate of deaths has declined greatly since the vaccine is reaching more people.

So far 578,000 Americans have died. You don't need to be an expert or wait to understand the ramifications of neglecting to get the vaccine.

Everything else is pretty much BS.

While I would agree, that's not what we're discussing. Someone tried to pin our inability to achieve herd immunity solely on Republicans. The truth of the matter is that it's nowhere near that simple, as evidenced by that person's very own link.

... I then went on a tangent equating pushing un-approved vaccines on the population to putting the cart before the horse. Let the pharma companies go through the process to prove, definitively, that the vaccines are safe and effective and then we can talk about tying people down so we can jab them with needles.

I certainly was not advocating that we tie people down. However you probably won't agree with my perspective on the topic.

Covid 19 has killed more Americans than the number of our soldiers that were killed during WW2. During WW2 the citizens of our nation pulled together to sacrifice in order to defeat a common enemy. They dealt with rationing and scraping every penny to buy war bonds to support the war effort. Industry worked together with our government to produce the supplies needed to defeat our enemy. That's just what patriotic Americans do when faced with a common enemy.

Covid is no less of an enemy than the Germans and Japanese were during WW2. It's has killed even more Americans and continues to do so. Just because you can't see the enemy and it's not wearing a uniform, has no impact on the fact it is an enemy of the American people. Body counts matter.

Can you imagine what history would be saying about Americans who refused to support our efforts during WW2? What they would say about a political party or TV Networks trying to downplay the severity, ramifications and cost of life during WW2? Anyone or anything that would even suggest we neglect to take measures during WW2 that could save the life of possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans?

The things you can imagine they would say is exactly how I feel about anti vaxxers. People give lip service to the flag and scream about the National Anthem. How people should stand for it. Yet when they have the chance to step up and actually DO SOMETHING to help save their fellow Americans, many of those same people refuse to take action. They are only willing to give Patriotism lip service.

Now you may say that's an extreme viewpoint. And I have no issue with those who see it that way. But I was raised by a man who was a MSGT in the U.S. Army. He taught me some very valuable lessons. And one was that you can't measure Patriotism on feelings or words. You base Patriotism on actions.

I agree that Republicans refusing to get the vaccine isn't the only factor. What I can say is those that are undermining the confidence in Americans as to the safety and effectiveness the vaccine provides ARE mostly Republicans.

Just like what fish posted yesterday. A video from a site called Rumble where there is no accountability on their videos and many on the right have migrated so they can post false content with no accountability.

See we can agree that it isn't "just Republicans who aren't getting the vaccine". But what I will refuse to agree with is that it isn't Republicans who are putting forth the most concerted effort to undermine it and from everything I can find is the group with the highest percentage of people within it refusing the vaccine.

At this point the inmates are running the asylum.

How much more evidence does it take than over 200,000,000 million Americans have gotten the vaccine with little serious side effects before the prevention of death overrides unfounded fear tactics?

Ok... it's twice now so forgive me for pointing out.

It's either 200 million - or 200,000,000. It's not 200,000,000 Million

I think drawing such a black and white comparison as fighting WW2 is not appropriate due to many factors. Not the least of which is the uncertainty and the mixed advice & messaging that came out of the WHO and CDC (even without Trump's interference and misdirection). Add to that the misinformation that's spewed and readily available online. Addressing the misinformation and lies that permeate society is a minefield - do you want to be the arbitrator of truth? What do you want to do with people who - say - have been groomed to believe Trump had the election stolen from him? Or who are uncertain of the vaccine? Do you want to mandate that they can't hold those beliefs? How do you govern/legislate that.

And even if you want to use WW2 as an example - what year did WW2 start? And when did the USA join the allies in fighting Nazi Germany? It's not the same date as Europe and our Allies. Even in your black and white analogy there is grey.

Not picking on you Pit, you share the sentiment of the large majority, but "everything else" is NOT pretty much BS. There is a large part of this equation this seems to be conveniently ignored...

Part of the road to this relatively unquantifiable term "herd immunity" is natural infection.

Reinfection rates are absurdly low. World-wide they are way less than .005, even the much hailed Dutch study -- among thousands of healthcare workers working in public hospitals is only 1.5%

Research suggests that COVID-19 vaccines may have lower efficacy against some of the variants of the COVID-19 virus than natural infection.

Long-term protection by either form (vaccine or natural infection) are basically UNKNOWN. All we have is educated guesses, period.

Natural infection plays an important role in the road to conquering Covid. Just as important as vaccination in overall effect, more important in terms of wiping out variants.

So, should people that have been infected also get the vaccine? The ambitious answer falls directly into the category of "well, it can't hurt" and no scientific evidence has proved anything more.

For the record, I have been infected and I'm in no hurry to get vaccinated. I probably will, but I have the luxury of a different timeline, particularly since I haven't even passed the recommended six month threshold since infection. I've been watching world-wide reinfection rates and vaccine efficacy since the beginning. Not slanted articles that conveniently ignore actual evidence, or won't even acknowledge important factors -- actual studies and verifiable medical evidence.

I'll make my choice for me, not to avoid being called irresponsible, thrown into categories, shamed or labeled. And to be blunt, all the banter and shaming is absurd whether the "targets" been infected or not. Most evidence points to the fact that "you want them on that wall, you need them on that wall" if we ever hope to reach the point of "herd immunity" anyway.

If everyone were vaccinated we wouldn't have to worry about the luck of the draw on people getting infected in the first place much less re-infection.

The actual part of infection and re-infection is only a part of herd immunity when there are no other scenarios available. It's the least attractive option.

And allow me to clarify. I meant the excuses not to be vaccinated are pretty much BS.

The data that they're putting together now to convince the FDA to fully approve the vaccine, is my answer to this question.

Granted, there's a significant portion of the population (the one we've been talking about in this thread lately) that still will fight getting the vaccine. These are the same people that think you're trying to poison them with the measles vaccines and so on. Well-established pools of data mean nothing to these people.

and just to frame what I'm saying here... I got the vaccine when it was made available to me. Prior, I was debating internally about when I would get it because I wasn't wild about a new type of vaccine with a new development process getting fire-drilled through development and regulatory scrutiny prior to emergency use. Hesitancy, in this situation, should be pretty understandable... especially since people are generally very risk-averse when it comes to their health.

I don't think it's so unreasonable to wait until the vaccine is fully approved for use before we start getting on peoples' cases about it.

Do you have any sources to indicate this or is this based strictly upon your opinions and feelings?



So now that the body of evidence, over 200,000,000 vaccinated, that wouldn't have an impact in your decision if you were making it at this time? See that's part of my point. We aren't at the beginning stages of the vaccine where I have no doubt people had some legitimate questions. That's not where we are now. And other than an answer based on what you "think and feel" you have nothing to base the answer you gave concerning the data.



As for when the vaccine first came out I agree. As to where we stand now this would be based in fear and nothing else.

No offense bro, but "200,000,000 vaccinated" is not evidence, it's just a number. It's proves nothing about the overall efficacy -- most people have only been vaccinated for a couple months, vaccination as a whole is only four months in the rear-view. Bottom line, we are at the beginning of making any direct scientific assumptions as to what effect on the spread and overall efficacy of the vaccine.

Numbers hold meaning. How many millions more vaccines would it take until people can reasonably come to the conclusion that the possibility of ending up on a ventilator and even possible death is a worse option than a vaccine that has been proven to be much safer than many prescription drugs currently on the market? So you're saying that even though there have been very few serious side effects after 200,000,000 million vaccines have been given, that has no evidentiary value? Seriously?

It's true that "as a whole" we are at the beginning of reaching herd immunity, That doesn't lessen the fact that after 200,000,000 vaccines being shown to have very little serious side effects, that most certainly is a large body of evidence.

The vaccine has been proven to be 94% effective even among the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly.

Pfizer, Moderna Covid vaccines 94% effective at preventing hospitalizations in elderly, CDC study shows

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/28/cdc-pfiz...alizations.html

Just clicking

where would we be if people refused to take the Polio Vaccine? Just wondering

No. I have no links or evidence that Pfizer, Moderna, etc are pushing as hard as they can to complete their clinical trials so they can put a complete submission in to the FDA for full approval of the vaccines. It is an assumption.

This begs the question why the FDA doesn't just say, "you know what? You're good, have at it".


The reason is because there's a large difference between proving very basic safety and efficacy (to build the argument that the benefits probably outweigh the risks) in addition to a lack of other options to address a health emergency (paraphrasing conditions for Emergency Use Authority), and full approval. Those differences include longer monitoring periods to watch for any long-term effects of the vaccine, accumulating data for any/all patient groups (ex. children and adolescents, pregnant women) and just a larger data pool from which to draw conclusions.

There would be a lot more crippled people around if they survived the disease. Today it is an afterthought, back then it was a real fear.

Your comment made me think of another question. Was there any significant number of folks that fought against the polio vaccine back in the day? was there a group of politicians saying "it's not real"

Is this the best you can do? lmao@u

I wasn't making fun of his google skills, I was pointing out that the evidence is easily found with a simple google search. AND NOPE, it's mainly the republicans not getting the vaccine because they are just absurd.

All your points are valid. I'm not saying that the short term positive results have "no evidentiary value", not at all... just pointing out that the number in and of itself doesn't qualify as evidence. And to be fair, I'm referring to efficacy over time, not trying to speak for the doom and gloom side effects crowd. Going back and reading my comment, not the best of wording, my bad. Still, there is absolutely no proof of efficacy over time, not without a flux capacitor.

To be clear, I'm definitely not arguing against the vaccine. I guess there are really just two points for me to make.

First -- you're never going to get everyone to belly up to the bar for the vaccine. The people that don't are they're own worst enemy... but at the end of the day, they actually help with herd immunity. So what if everybody just "worried about their own damn selves" as the saying goes. If you are vaccinated, why are people even worried if others aren't? Especially since it's very evident that most people will be. I don't understand the hateful speech, media scrutiny and trying to stuff every individual into a category because they don't want to get a vaccine.

Second -- people that already have been infected, as far as the numbers go, are actually safer to be around than people that have been vaccinated... at least to this point in time. Math is finite, it doesn't lie.

Thanks for engaging in real conversation, I know my point of view is different than many others.

1. I guess it's not as simple as you infer, because the link you yourself posted doesn't support your argument.

2. See #1

We had a little over a year to study Covid and it has killed over 560,000 Americans. We've had months to study the vaccine and the death count is on the decline.

The only point you've made to me is that we can all sit back and say, "There's been no long term studies". But we certainly have overwhelming evidence of the lesser of the two evils. And it's not even close.

j/c

The following information shows the direct correlation between Trump voters and the lack of vaccines given.



U.S. counties with more Trump voters are less likely to be vaccinated, data shows

https://www.kxan.com/news/political-news...ted-data-shows/

The only problem I see in what you posted, and it's a very BIG problem.

So far the "herd immunity by infection" method has killed over 560,000 Americans. I think that alone shows the flaw in people using that method. It's not a legitimate alternative.

Devil's advocate would point out that 80% of those deaths occurred while "herd immunity by infection" was the ONLY choice, ie... before the vaccine roll-out. But your point stands.

I agree with you. There was no choice. I'm not sure how that changes the cost of life incurred when that was the only method used.

While I'm sure there were many Covid cases that went unreported and early on probably a lot of Coivd deaths that weren't reported, we do have a data base with which to base some basic comparisons.

There have been 32.6 million cases reported resulting in 579,000 deaths.

There have been over 200,000,000 million vaccines administered with only a hand full of deaths and those all came from the J&J vaccine.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus...icans-poll-find

From the story: there are multiple polls and articles that show the same

Among Republican men, 49% said they did not plan to get the shot, compared with just 6% of Democratic men who said the same. Among those who said they supported President Trump in the 2020 election, 47% said they did not plan to get a coronavirus vaccine compared with just 10% of Biden supporters.

Similarly, compared with "big city" respondents, rural residents were more likely to say that they did not plan to take a coronavirus vaccine.

There were plenty of choices pre vaccine! We just couldn't convince them to stay home or wear masks! mAh FrEeDoMs!