9 ms·

If you're willing to dismiss an anecdote then you should also dismiss the first anecdote in this thread. If you're willing to listen to an anecdote, then you sh

If you're willing to dismiss an anecdote then you should also dismiss the first anecdote in this thread. If you're willing to listen to an anecdote, then you should also listen to the second anecdote in this thread. This is about more than denying issues. It's about trying to get the whole picture. Ignoring any anecdotes you don't agree with doesn't help you get the whole picture.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> If you're willing to dismiss an anecdote then you should also dismiss the first anecdote in this thread. If you're willing to listen to an anecdote, then you should also listen to the second anecdote in this thread. I think you misunderstood. The point was that it’s not about picking anecdotes that support your conclusion. You have to look at broader data collection and studies, not just whatever small bits of anecdata are conveniently nearby.
- rabuse 5y ago
  And the broader data and studies suggest most people will be fine who catch COVID, so what's your point?
  - glenstein 5y ago
    The problem posed by a pandemic is that harms affecting a small percentage of overall cases are nevertheless staggering in absolute terms. Moreover, those who get better nevertheless contribute to the stresses that are stretching health care system and economy to its limits. These stresses cause second order harms to those having to go without care as resources are mobilized to support those who "will be fine."
    - drjasonharrison 5y ago
      In other words, hospital beds and other resources don't scale with infection rates.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  Yea and the studies and evidence usually point no-lockdowns, leave schools open. Is that not your experience?
  - glenstein 5y ago
    The first thing I could find from Google was an apparently reliable looking fact checking site[0] that pretty explicitly disagrees with this, at least as it pertains to lockdowns in general: >A study looking at interventions in 11 European countries found that lockdowns and social distancing in the first wave helped lower the reproductive number (R) to below 1 by early May 2020[2]. R measures how many people one infected person will pass the virus on to. When R is above 1, the number of infections can rise exponentially. When R is below 1, the number of infections drops. >In this study, the scientists developed a model to predict how many people would have died in these 11 countries, if no lockdown measures had been introduced. Comparing the actual number of deaths counted with the number of deaths predicted by their model, in the absence of any interventions, they found that around 3.1 million deaths were averted across these 11 countries from the beginning of the epidemic up until 4 May 2020. Scientific evidence shows that COVID-19 restrictions reduced virus transmission and, by extension, saved lives 0: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/evidence-shows-that-lockdowns-implemented-to-tackle-the-spread-of-covid-19-have-saved-lives-contrary-to-claims-in-the-new-york-post/ https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/evidence-shows-that-l...
    - timr 5y ago
      Health feedback is garbage. It is the "fact-checking" site that facebook uses, and has a regular pattern of presenting the political opinions of its writers as facts. For example, they flagged a WSJ op-ed by Marty Makary where he expressed a prediction, as misinformation: https://archive.is/1JnsW https://archive.is/1JnsW Regardless of what you think of Makary's original opinion, there's no universe in which a prediction of the future from a medical expert should be labeled misinformation. If that's the bar, then ~all of the statistical models used to make scary predictions about Covid are also "misinformation", as are 95% of the things Anthony Fauci says on cable news. "Politicians are holding children hostage in the basement of a pizza place" => clearly incorrect factual statement. "I think that Covid infections will be far below their current numbers by summer" => opinion about the future. (Regarding the particular claim advanced by health feedback here: it's a "fact check" based on a single paper, written by Neil Ferugson's group, that attempts to validate the predictions made by...Neil Ferguson's group. There have now been many others that say the opposite [1]. At the very least, you'd hope that a reputable "fact-checking" site would discuss these to present a balanced picture of the debate. Health feedback doesn't bother.) [1] https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co...
Retric 5y ago
Positive and negative anecdotes don’t directly cancel. Suppose 990/1,000 people that took a pill where fine and the rest died. Clearly it’s a serious risk even if you’re almost guaranteed to be fine. Looking at anecdotal evidence would show “most people where fine”/“10 cases of people dying!” But let’s change the numbers 999,999,990/1,000,000,000 took a pill and 10 died, now is it a serious risk or roughly as dangerous as driving to work? You still have “10 cases of people dying!” but it’s nowhere near the same thing.
- kragen 5y ago
  Also, and I think this is part of what you were saying, if 1% risk of death is unacceptably high, it takes more than 99 "positive" anecdotes to "cancel" one "negative" anecdote (of dying from the pill).
  - mostertoaster 5y ago
    So are you saying we should listen to the anecdotes of those who died from getting the vaccine?
    - Retric 5y ago
      Yes, record them and compare it with the numbers of people that where fine. The vaccine that was pulled very much came down to anecdotes vs numbers of injections in a cost benefit analysis. Presumably it would have still been administered to the elderly if their where no alternative vaccines. But as their where alternatives it wasn’t worth putting people at even such low risks.
      - mint2 5y ago
        And don’t forget, compare also to the number who would have died if they not taken the vaccine.
        mostertoaster 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> If you're willing to dismiss an anecdote then you should also dismiss the first anecdote in this thread. If you're willing to listen to an anecdote, then you should also listen to the second anecdote in this thread. I think you misunderstood. The point was that it’s not about picking anecdotes that support your conclusion. You have to look at broader data collection and studies, not just whatever small bits of anecdata are conveniently nearby.

rabuse 5y ago
And the broader data and studies suggest most people will be fine who catch COVID, so what's your point?
- glenstein 5y ago
  The problem posed by a pandemic is that harms affecting a small percentage of overall cases are nevertheless staggering in absolute terms. Moreover, those who get better nevertheless contribute to the stresses that are stretching health care system and economy to its limits. These stresses cause second order harms to those having to go without care as resources are mobilized to support those who "will be fine."
  - drjasonharrison 5y ago
    In other words, hospital beds and other resources don't scale with infection rates.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
Yea and the studies and evidence usually point no-lockdowns, leave schools open. Is that not your experience?
- glenstein 5y ago
  The first thing I could find from Google was an apparently reliable looking fact checking site[0] that pretty explicitly disagrees with this, at least as it pertains to lockdowns in general: >A study looking at interventions in 11 European countries found that lockdowns and social distancing in the first wave helped lower the reproductive number (R) to below 1 by early May 2020[2]. R measures how many people one infected person will pass the virus on to. When R is above 1, the number of infections can rise exponentially. When R is below 1, the number of infections drops. >In this study, the scientists developed a model to predict how many people would have died in these 11 countries, if no lockdown measures had been introduced. Comparing the actual number of deaths counted with the number of deaths predicted by their model, in the absence of any interventions, they found that around 3.1 million deaths were averted across these 11 countries from the beginning of the epidemic up until 4 May 2020. Scientific evidence shows that COVID-19 restrictions reduced virus transmission and, by extension, saved lives 0: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/evidence-shows-that-lockdowns-implemented-to-tackle-the-spread-of-covid-19-have-saved-lives-contrary-to-claims-in-the-new-york-post/ https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/evidence-shows-that-l...
  - timr 5y ago
    Health feedback is garbage. It is the "fact-checking" site that facebook uses, and has a regular pattern of presenting the political opinions of its writers as facts. For example, they flagged a WSJ op-ed by Marty Makary where he expressed a prediction, as misinformation: https://archive.is/1JnsW https://archive.is/1JnsW Regardless of what you think of Makary's original opinion, there's no universe in which a prediction of the future from a medical expert should be labeled misinformation. If that's the bar, then ~all of the statistical models used to make scary predictions about Covid are also "misinformation", as are 95% of the things Anthony Fauci says on cable news. "Politicians are holding children hostage in the basement of a pizza place" => clearly incorrect factual statement. "I think that Covid infections will be far below their current numbers by summer" => opinion about the future. (Regarding the particular claim advanced by health feedback here: it's a "fact check" based on a single paper, written by Neil Ferugson's group, that attempts to validate the predictions made by...Neil Ferguson's group. There have now been many others that say the opposite [1]. At the very least, you'd hope that a reputable "fact-checking" site would discuss these to present a balanced picture of the debate. Health feedback doesn't bother.) [1] https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co...

Retric 5y ago

Positive and negative anecdotes don’t directly cancel. Suppose 990/1,000 people that took a pill where fine and the rest died. Clearly it’s a serious risk even if you’re almost guaranteed to be fine. Looking at anecdotal evidence would show “most people where fine”/“10 cases of people dying!” But let’s change the numbers 999,999,990/1,000,000,000 took a pill and 10 died, now is it a serious risk or roughly as dangerous as driving to work? You still have “10 cases of people dying!” but it’s nowhere near the same thing.

kragen 5y ago
Also, and I think this is part of what you were saying, if 1% risk of death is unacceptably high, it takes more than 99 "positive" anecdotes to "cancel" one "negative" anecdote (of dying from the pill).
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  So are you saying we should listen to the anecdotes of those who died from getting the vaccine?
  - Retric 5y ago
    Yes, record them and compare it with the numbers of people that where fine. The vaccine that was pulled very much came down to anecdotes vs numbers of injections in a cost benefit analysis. Presumably it would have still been administered to the elderly if their where no alternative vaccines. But as their where alternatives it wasn’t worth putting people at even such low risks.
    - mint2 5y ago
      And don’t forget, compare also to the number who would have died if they not taken the vaccine.
      - mostertoaster 5y ago