4 ms·

> Evidence to the contrary is welcome You understand the burden of proof is on the person who's making a claim, not on people who disagree with the claim? I'

by b3kart 6y ago

> Evidence to the contrary is welcome You understand the burden of proof is on the person who's making a claim, not on people who disagree with the claim? I've too suffered being stuck at home for more than a year, but in my book this is still better than me or somebody else getting sick with god-only-knows what long term complications, which we don't have data for one way or another, and won't for some time still.

krona 6y ago
> You understand the burden of proof is on the person who's making a claim, not on people who disagree with the claim? Interesting idea, but false in this case unless you are arguing that lockdowns are and will be, in perpetuity, the status quo. > this is still better than me or somebody else getting sick with god-only-knows what long term complications, which we don't have data for one way or another Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it?
- b3kart 6y ago
  > unless you are arguing that lockdowns are and will be, in perpetuity, the status quo I am not arguing either way, what I am saying is shouting "here's what I think, prove me wrong" is not how it works. "Here's what I think, and here is the evidence" is how it works. Lack of data can't support any claim. If we don't have good data on whether lockdowns are effective, it doesn't mean they aren't. It means we don't know. In which case we do a risk analysis, taking our uncertainty and potential benefits/drawbacks into account. > Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it? I don't consider myself absent from society. I am talking to you now, am I not? And yes, I consider my temporary suffering to be outweighed by potentially permanent suffering of myself or someone else.
anoncake 6y ago
I completely agree that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The claim in question is that a significant percentage of those who get Covid will have permanent (or at least long-term) damage. > which we don't have data for one way or another, and won't for some time still. Exactly. There is no evidence for "long Covid" as a frequent phenomenon. The pandemic has been going on for 15 months. Yet those who believe in long Covid still only provide evidence that people aren't always fully recovered after timespans like 3 months. If Covid frequently caused permanent damage, there would be a lot of people who were infected, say, a year ago, who haven't recovered and show no sign of doing so (their condition has plateaued). There would be studies showing that, there isn't exactly a shortage of scientists researching the topic. And, obviously, people would provide that evidence as it would support their point better. Yet they don't.

by b3kart 6y ago

krona 6y ago

> You understand the burden of proof is on the person who's making a claim, not on people who disagree with the claim? Interesting idea, but false in this case unless you are arguing that lockdowns are and will be, in perpetuity, the status quo. > this is still better than me or somebody else getting sick with god-only-knows what long term complications, which we don't have data for one way or another Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it?

b3kart 6y ago
> unless you are arguing that lockdowns are and will be, in perpetuity, the status quo I am not arguing either way, what I am saying is shouting "here's what I think, prove me wrong" is not how it works. "Here's what I think, and here is the evidence" is how it works. Lack of data can't support any claim. If we don't have good data on whether lockdowns are effective, it doesn't mean they aren't. It means we don't know. In which case we do a risk analysis, taking our uncertainty and potential benefits/drawbacks into account. > Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it? I don't consider myself absent from society. I am talking to you now, am I not? And yes, I consider my temporary suffering to be outweighed by potentially permanent suffering of myself or someone else.

anoncake 6y ago

I completely agree that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The claim in question is that a significant percentage of those who get Covid will have permanent (or at least long-term) damage. > which we don't have data for one way or another, and won't for some time still. Exactly. There is no evidence for "long Covid" as a frequent phenomenon. The pandemic has been going on for 15 months. Yet those who believe in long Covid still only provide evidence that people aren't always fully recovered after timespans like 3 months. If Covid frequently caused permanent damage, there would be a lot of people who were infected, say, a year ago, who haven't recovered and show no sign of doing so (their condition has plateaued). There would be studies showing that, there isn't exactly a shortage of scientists researching the topic. And, obviously, people would provide that evidence as it would support their point better. Yet they don't.