First let me say that I appreciate this discussion. Thank you for your skepticism and for continuing to come back and point out the inadequacies in my attempt to persuade you to re-examine your position.
Secondly, up until now I thought it possible your position could very well prove to be correct (its not*). My point was simply that you could not tell it from the data you were referencing.
(*) Now that I have followed your links to their source and undertaken the tedious effort to examine the data, here is now the empirical evidence that you are wrong:
1) Using the data from which your reference cited (which came from
https://www.census.gov/), of the reported total respondents, a grossly disproportionate number reported a post-high school education (more than half) when only ~38% of the US population falls into that category. I was tipped to this obvious flaw pretty early on from having read some other studies indicating surveys were vastly oversampling people with post-high school education. (Mind you, the survey should not be faulted for this. It is just a tool for gathering data and making more informed hypotheses from which more scientific surveys could be conducted.)
As an aside: your apparent conclusion was but one possible 'informed' hypothesis that could be drawn from the initial survey. Pseudoscience is stopping at the first and substituting a hypothesis for fact (and in so doing falling victim to the correlation fallacy as so many do). My proffering anecdotal evidence was simply conjecture meant to clue the author of a potentially flawed hypothesis to the fact that many questions needed to be answered before for such a conclusion could be made. True science is following through with the additional research (and continuing to do so as long as you continue to learn new things or uncover new questions).
2) When adding in those with no college who are not vaccinated yet but plan to at least 'probably' get a vaccine, the gap about which you speak closes to within or near the standard error.
3) This final item is not 'empirical' per se, but noteworthy nonetheless: consider that the vax was first made available to the medical community and first responders--the overwhelming majority of whom have at least associates degrees (RN's, aka registered nurse, is a two-year associates degree program at many technical schools). Your data came from an article written over the summer using data presumably older still--when the overwhelming majority of those vax'd were the tier 1/first responders.
These are all things that data scientists quickly spot but that the public at large can easily be misled by...specifically those with Journalism and Poli-sci degrees (i.e. the media) and an agenda. Yeah, I am throwing some serious shade at what I otherwise consider to be a shady profession...so let me reveal some of my bias: I hold an MS in Computer Science and am 'practicing' computer scientist (for the federal government no less! [gasp]). Computer Science is quite heavy on the science of data--but I certainly do not consider myself a 'data-scientist'. I also freely admit there are still flaws in my arguments, but fleshing them out would be a topic of a research thesis for a PhD and dissertation. You'll have to forgive me for not wanting to go through such lengths here.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
