NARRATIVE

[Hempy McNoodle]

Fact check: Setting the record straight on claims about vaccine hesitancy among Ph.D.s

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — Some skeptics who question the vaccine are pointing to a survey that found a high rate of hesitancy among people who have Ph.D. degrees.

CBS17.com tracked down one of the authors of the study that’s based on those survey results, and while she says the numbers are accurate, they might not mean what the questioners think it does.

THE CLAIM: Nearly a quarter of people with Ph.D. degrees responding to a survey expressed hesitancy about the vaccines, with the implication that if some of the most educated people have questions about them, then perhaps more people should, too.

THE FACTS: Researchers Robin Mejia at Carnegie-Mellon University and Wendy C. King of the University of Pittsburgh based their study of vaccine hesitancy rates off of results from a Facebook Data for Good survey, reviewing about 1 million responses each month between January and May and analyzing it by race, education, region and support of former President Donald Trump.

READ THE PREPRINT OF THE STUDY HERE

They found 23.9 percent of the people who said they hold Ph.D. degrees expressed hesitancy, the highest rate among the various levels of education.

But some of their work appears to be misrepresented online, missing the overall point that hesitancy dropped.

“There are people that can kind of take a data point and twist it around to mean something that it doesn’t mean, and that’s unfortunate,” King said.

A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”

For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.

“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”

There were some other issues.

The study hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet.

People taking the survey were on the honor system, with no way to make sure people who claimed to have Ph.D. degrees actually have them.

And the Ph.D. group does not include medical doctors or nurses.

“So it’s not representative of the medical profession,” King said.

https://www.wnct.com/news/north-car...-claims-about-vaccine-hesitancy-among-ph-d-s/

So, in summary, they ran a garbage study using garbage facebook data hoping it would help their political narrative and when it did not end up helping their narrative they publicly discredited themselves and their study and material, yet, still managed to put the blame on the general public, rather than on themselves. It didn't stop them from publishing the study, however. So, I am happy about that. I'm guessing that they had to publish it and couldn't not-publish it, due to grant funding requirements and such.

 

[audiohi]

So, in summary, they ran a garbage study using garbage facebook data hoping it would help their political narrative and when it did not end up helping their narrative they publicly discredited themselves and their study and material, yet, still managed to put the blame on the general public, rather than on themselves. It didn't stop them from publishing the study, however. So, I am happy about that. I'm guessing that they had to publish it and couldn't not-publish it, due to grant funding requirements and such.

You posted that Facebook survey done between January - May, before FDA approval, which was later "corrected" to show an percentage of 14.6% unvaccinated Phds.

All of it was done on the honor system.

Guess who funded it....

​

It's also interesting to see vaccine hesitancy by education level.

It sure seems like you believed it when you posted it.

The Great Awakening!

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

You posted that Facebook survey done between January - May, before FDA approval, which was later "corrected" to show an percentage of 14.6% unvaccinated Phds.

All of it was done on the honor system.

Guess who funded it....

​



It sure seems like you believed it when you posted it.

The Great Awakening!

No. I posted a Carnegie Mellon Study. I don't recall any statements or disclaimers in the study at the time.

Would they have denounced their own study if the results showed vaccine hesitancy was highest among the least educated? I bet they would have stood by it. Do they have any proof that it was bad data? If it was bad data why did the study even happen? So, now that the study is said to be flawed (by those who conducted it), did they ever do a proper study with better data? Or, do they know better now (afraid that a new study will show the same results?)?

 

[Gry]

So, in summary, they ran a garbage study using garbage facebook data hoping it would help their political narrative and when it did not end up helping their narrative they publicly discredited themselves and their study and material, yet, still managed to put the blame on the general public, rather than on themselves. It didn't stop them from publishing the study, however. So, I am happy about that. I'm guessing that they had to publish it and couldn't not-publish it, due to grant funding requirements and such.

Been my experience that those with positive intent tend to see the same in others.
The inverse applies.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Been my experience that those with positive intent tend to see the same in others.
The inverse applies.

True. But, People with good intentions can also recognize bad intentions and even vice versa. I hope you weren't implying that I have bad intentions (because I don't). My intentions are good, except in the eyes of those with bad intentions..

 

[Microbeman]

"Your old narrative is evaporating with the Great Awakening (and Mr Durham)." HAHAHAHAHA - Oh my goodness.