In Which Hinderaker (And His Former Client) Cite Non-Peer Reviewed “Racial Difference” Study — On Vax In Rural South.

Damn. Just… damn.

I didn’t realize Kevin had a racial agenda. I just assumed he was not very… sharp. Like John, but I’ve long seen Hinderaker’s “phrenology” agenda appear, in many a context.

Tonight, the pair of them, ostensibly to critique the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines (a mission they both fail, yet again — BTW), end up wandering into offering wholly speculative conclusions about data (making racially- stereotyping assumptions, about the data — that is itself highly suspect, since it is not peer vetted… and covers only a small part of the rural South).

Actually — this looks to be… intentional lying, of a racial sort: they want to promote the idea that Black people are “the problem”… when it comes to persistently-high Covid incidence rates.

So they grab a shoddy data set, and offer wholly unsupportable conclusions from it.

As to the vetted facts, do see at above left. The truth is, the best predictor of whether you’ll die of Covid turns out to be (i) whether you are unvaccinated over the age of 65, coupled to (ii) how completely your county voted Trump in 2020. That is, the more MAGA your local old folks are, in a given county, the greater the overall mortality rate is.

Those are facts; peer vetted, boys.

So sit down and shut up.

Out.