One of the reasons election polls get so much attention (beyond the obvious) is that they serve as an external validator of polling data. Here, the CDC numbers allow us to compare the polls with a source of hard data on the actual number of shots.
(Another interesting outcome of having that data is that a couple of pollsters have recently started weighting *to* the CDC vaccination rate as a benchmark -- will be very interested to hear more on how that's playing out.)
More on this -- which finds that "gigantic sample size" does not equate to better data on this metric:
Feels like maybe some people have taken the (correct) premise that a disproportionately energized base on the unpopular side of an issue can shift the political calculus in their favor, and missed that the anti-vaccine faction doesn't actually seem to have intensity advantage.
e.g.
(The remaining question is whether politics is more likely to shift current views about the vaccine or whether the vaccine is more likely to shift current views about politics, and I suspect the answer to that is possibly "yes.")
1) the children's cartoon "Arthur" includes two goldfish named Vladimir and Estragon, according to the "Arthur" wiki
2) there is an "Arthur" wiki
truly, the internet
there had better be a comic misunderstanding subplot where somebody is petsitting and panics because they think they've somehow lost a third fish named Godot
"shall we go?"
"yes, let's go"
"...go where?"
"what are you -- ooh, plastic castle"
(yes, I know the goldfish memory thing is apocryphal, work with me here)
would read: a comparative study on the quantity and engagement levels of posts on different social media platforms whose main premise is that the social media platform in question is bad
like, do people love tiktoking(?) that tiktok is awful as much as they do tweeting that twitter is awful