I'm posting Episode 168 of Inside The Numbers, which YouTube removed and big tech apparently does NOT want you to see, because I do. We discussed a major study comparing Covid-19 immunity between various groups, i.e. ONLY vaccinated vs. infected/recovered but NOT vaccinated, and other groups.
At 3:10 AM EST, YouTube informed us that the video was removed for including “claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus”.
That, of course, is an anti-science statement in and of itself, and furthermore, total bull$#1t.
So, without any further delay...
ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: On Inside The Numbers, we discuss the first results of the Public Polling Project for Late Spring/Early Summer, plus more!
Streaming Live on Locals to discuss the June 28 Primaries (Supporter Test for New Feature).
Locals Book Club to discuss "Myths of Empire" by Jack Snyder, covering Chapter 3: "Germany and the Pattern of Late Development", to include "Trends in Overexpansion: Provoking Self-Encirclement".
Zoom info for the People's Pundit Locals Book Club to discuss "Myths of Empire" by Jack Snyder, covering Chapter 3: "Germany and the Pattern of Late Development", to include "Trends in Overexpansion: Provoking Self-Encirclement".
Watch Live 3:00 PM EST — Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss in detail bombshell results within the Public Polling Project for Early Spring 2021, and more civil unrest amid the trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd.
Support the Public Polling Project
Like on Facebook
Theme Song: "Highway" By Grammy Considered Bowen Band
Inside The Numbers LIVE at 12:00 PM EST — Are the midterms really looking less of a Red Wave or is it a summer non-response bias? We’ll discuss it. Plus, privacy rights and the FBI raid on Mira-Lago with David Sinclair of Volta Wireless and Don Smith. https://rumble.com/v1fqvbv-episode-279-inside-the-numbers-with-the-peoples-pundit.html?mref=iec21&mc=bd7nv
I thought this would be a great example to use in order for me to point out some Dos and Don'ts with weighting and polling in general.
First, notice that the unweighted sample for 18-24 is N=53, or just 6.3%. However, they weighted UP to nearly double at 11.5% to attempt to compensate for falling considerably shy of the 12.0% benchmark.
That alone will almost assuredly reduce the weighting efficiency to nearly 90%, which alone would be fine, but it's just one variable. Weighting up by a large factor significantly increases the error rate for the subgroup.
But in fact, 18-44 were all weighted UP, significantly in two age groups.
The raw N=77 for 25-34, or 9.2% of the total sample, was weighted UP to 16.8%, still shy of their 17.6% benchmark.
Given the percentage of independent voters in that age group, they are highly likely to misrepresent vote preference for independents.
What should they have done? Well, given that "70% of completed surveys on cell phones" and "sampling frame was ...