zlacker

I take issue with the "substantial number" claim.

Where are the studies that actually show it is a substantial number? Where's the peer-reviewed replication of those studies? How do those studies account for the "Lizardman constant" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...)?

Maybe I'm unique, but I'd guess many of the downvoters have similar complaints.

>>NateEa+(OP)
"Half of Fox News viewers think Bill Gates is using pandemic to microchip them, survey suggests"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-b...

>>NateEa+(OP)
Only about half of Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine if the scientists working furiously to create one succeed, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americ...

How many people does it take to become 'substantial'?

>>matwoo+tn
Okay, that's some information, and certainly half is a lot.

If you didn't read my link, I suggest you do. Plenty of polls are designed in a way that almost encourage terribly inaccurate results.

Perhaps these aren't, but I'm not going to be convinced they're accurate by just a cursory glance at results.

I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, either - just being skeptical until I see a really strong case.

>>evan_+Oh
If accurate, half of people thinking that is a ton, and a huge issue.

As I suggested in my first post, though, not all studies are created equal.

This one could be accurate, but I'm not jumping straight to 98% certainty based on two articles. Survey design matters, and high confidence must be earned.

I shouldn't have said I take issue with the claim. It would have been more accurate to say I don't know that I trust the claim implicitly.