4 ms·

> Same as claiming that Covid caused a lot of deaths when doctors in my country have been caught writing off car crash victims as Covid deaths > But feel free

> Same as claiming that Covid caused a lot of deaths when doctors in my country have been caught writing off car crash victims as Covid deaths > But feel free to keep citing the need for supporting evidence in an age where there are strong financial incentives to take one of the sides in this debate I can't speak to anything about your country or your experiences, but you've used an absolutely non-falsifiable (+ ludicrously non-scalable) anecdote as your "counter-argument" or whatever, while simultaneously denigrating the validity of any real supporting evidence that anyone might show. You call this a "debate" - what room have you left? Can I provide stats on the highly-monitored vaccine distribution in the US regarding death? Yes, sure (.0022%). But to what end? When you also claim: > No small amount of people died immediately after getting the vaccine." What is "not a small amount", I guess? Percentage-wise, 0.0022% sure seems small. Hell, maybe it's 50x worse than that in reality, which would still be just around 1/10th of a single percent! But, again, how can we have a conversation when you yourself refuse to provide any evidence for your beliefs, and pre-dismiss all other evidence due to financial incentives? None, as far as I can tell.

pdimitar 5y ago
Sadly both sides dismiss evidence on all sorts of grounds and I already regret posting here because yes, REALLY, I take no side no matter what various posters started claiming. I am just not happy with how one-sided the reporting on this whole thing has been. And it still is. There is nuance and it's immediately screamed out of existence. Anecdotal evidences also shouldn't be swept under the rug either. It's not good science in the objective sense because "statistical significance" is a rather random construct (and several months ago there was even a good article about it posted here on HN with a pretty interesting discussion with mathematicians and statisticians). I am out though. Seems even if somebody tries to argue in a less extremist way they are immediately labeled as loonies because they don't belong to the currently strongly believed state of things. Enjoy your echo chamber where posters saying "hey but this doesn't seem as clear and cut as you make it out to be" are labeled as conspiracy theorists or monsters. What a sad, sad age has this become. :| We'll see in another 5 or 10 years though. I am keeping my mind open. Do you?
- HelloMcFly 5y ago
  > REALLY, I take no side no matter what various posters started claiming. You claimed "not small" amounts of deaths as a direct result of vaccine administration, then balked at being asked to provide any evidence to support this claim while seeming to pre-dismiss contrary evidence. That does not make it seem like you are keeping an open mind or acting in good faith. > There is nuance and it's immediately screamed out of existence. There is nuance, but not on the population-level efficacy and safety of the vaccines relative to the risk of COVID infection. > Seems even if somebody tries to argue in a less extremist way they are immediately labeled as loonies You're arguing in a more extremist way (i.e., making counter-factual and unsubstantiated claims, reacting with offense when asked to support them; strongly doubting verifiable evidence but amplifying the value of anecdotes). I don't think you're a loonie, or a monster. But you are wrong.

pdimitar 5y ago

Sadly both sides dismiss evidence on all sorts of grounds and I already regret posting here because yes, REALLY, I take no side no matter what various posters started claiming. I am just not happy with how one-sided the reporting on this whole thing has been. And it still is. There is nuance and it's immediately screamed out of existence. Anecdotal evidences also shouldn't be swept under the rug either. It's not good science in the objective sense because "statistical significance" is a rather random construct (and several months ago there was even a good article about it posted here on HN with a pretty interesting discussion with mathematicians and statisticians). I am out though. Seems even if somebody tries to argue in a less extremist way they are immediately labeled as loonies because they don't belong to the currently strongly believed state of things. Enjoy your echo chamber where posters saying "hey but this doesn't seem as clear and cut as you make it out to be" are labeled as conspiracy theorists or monsters. What a sad, sad age has this become. :| We'll see in another 5 or 10 years though. I am keeping my mind open. Do you?

HelloMcFly 5y ago
> REALLY, I take no side no matter what various posters started claiming. You claimed "not small" amounts of deaths as a direct result of vaccine administration, then balked at being asked to provide any evidence to support this claim while seeming to pre-dismiss contrary evidence. That does not make it seem like you are keeping an open mind or acting in good faith. > There is nuance and it's immediately screamed out of existence. There is nuance, but not on the population-level efficacy and safety of the vaccines relative to the risk of COVID infection. > Seems even if somebody tries to argue in a less extremist way they are immediately labeled as loonies You're arguing in a more extremist way (i.e., making counter-factual and unsubstantiated claims, reacting with offense when asked to support them; strongly doubting verifiable evidence but amplifying the value of anecdotes). I don't think you're a loonie, or a monster. But you are wrong.