2 ms·
Yes OP didn't provide hard numbers or citations, but countering a broad statistical claim with small scale empirical evidence is always besides the point. It tr
by ascar 6y ago
Yes OP didn't provide hard numbers or citations, but countering a broad statistical claim with small scale empirical evidence is always besides the point. It tries to weaken the original claim without actually contradicting it at all.
OP didn't try to refrain people from providing opposing views or evidence that actually contradict his statements, he just asked to avoid that common fallacy.
- NicoJuicy 6y agoThe OP I responded to neither had hard numbers or citations. He had a subjective and wrong conclusion based on "WHO sources", which i can't find and which he neither had linked. If you want something on long covid, here it is from NHS ( UK): https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-publishes-second-themed-review-on-long-covid/27232 https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-publishes-second-themed-rev... > For those admitted to hospital, between 50-89% had at least one enduring symptom after two months. Of those not admitted to hospital, 20-30% experience at least one enduring symptom around one month later and at least 10% three months later; > Long Covid appears to be more prevalent in women and in young people (including children) than might have been expected from acute Covid19 mortality; That's not "very low"