4 ms·

The survey was online, yes, which is what allowed over 5 million people taking part in it. This is not uncommon in scientific articles, and I don't see why ment

The survey was online, yes, which is what allowed over 5 million people taking part in it. This is not uncommon in scientific articles, and I don't see why mentioning Facebook in your comment is relevant. Also 2.1% of the responders had a PhD and 2.0% of the US population has a PhD, that does not seem like "a fair amount higher". They also mention that "our sample is more educated with higher vaccine uptake than general population, indicating that vaccine hesitancy is underestimated in this sample." and that "Survey weights adjust for non response and coverage bias". With regards to the "small percentage" of transphobic comments, they say that "A sensitivity analysis eliminating respondents with self-described gender produced very similar results". So basically everything you said to try to discredit this particular paper that goes against your preconceived beliefs is irrelevant/wrong.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>The survey was online, yes, which is what allowed over 5 million people taking part in it. I didn't get that part. Five million was mentioned, but there were only five hundred thousand responses. I'd guess five million were offered the survey? >Also 2.1% of the responders had a PhD and 2.0% of the US population has a PhD, that does not seem like "a fair amount higher" The percent with a PhD I could find ranged from 1.2% to 1.6%, and you're ignoring that some amount of the 13% of "no response" would have PhD's as well. >They also mention that "our sample is more educated with higher vaccine uptake than general population, indicating that vaccine hesitancy is underestimated in this sample. Or that indicates people are lying about their education, supporting my previous point. They mention that one of the limitations is that the answers just need to be taken in good faith. So basically I will remain skeptical of Facebook surveys.
jollybean 5y ago
The means by which the poll was conducted is fundamental to the nature of the quality of the results.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>The survey was online, yes, which is what allowed over 5 million people taking part in it. I didn't get that part. Five million was mentioned, but there were only five hundred thousand responses. I'd guess five million were offered the survey? >Also 2.1% of the responders had a PhD and 2.0% of the US population has a PhD, that does not seem like "a fair amount higher" The percent with a PhD I could find ranged from 1.2% to 1.6%, and you're ignoring that some amount of the 13% of "no response" would have PhD's as well. >They also mention that "our sample is more educated with higher vaccine uptake than general population, indicating that vaccine hesitancy is underestimated in this sample. Or that indicates people are lying about their education, supporting my previous point. They mention that one of the limitations is that the answers just need to be taken in good faith. So basically I will remain skeptical of Facebook surveys.

jollybean 5y ago

The means by which the poll was conducted is fundamental to the nature of the quality of the results.