QUESTIONS for this forum:

Thing is, most people respected the lock down where I live, so this limited the infection rates in the people I know.

 

We don't know how long someone might live, period.

Wow! He sure defied the odds! Good for him. Just goes to show that ya never know, period.

Uh, no. This doesn't fly with me. He very likely would have been toast, but remember your story above, he might've defied the odds. But, going by the odds, even the common flu would have likely brought about a dirt nap.

That's because we don't know how long someone might live, period. There's always exceptions to the "general rule".

 

Did it really?

 

Why would you mischaracterize like that?

One might think you were trying to be dishonest

 

Yea...that's too bad...

 

Yes it did. No contact with infected people, no getting infected yourself.

 

The issues discussed here ARE issues that affect votes.

So, yes. What is said here does have an impact.

 

The science is not "hype".

And story time is not "dig deeper". Story time is "don't dig at all".

 

Presenting the best data available by existing efforts of measurement can not be considered a "scare tactic"

In fact, proposig that be ignored is an assault on America's health.

I suppose if nobody listens to you, then it's not that serious. But, your tactic IS being used by those who do get heard.

 

Assuming that’s true, should we not base our vote on how policy effects people at the individual level? Are you advocating for collectivism at the expense of the individual?

Furthermore, is information contained in this thread dangerous or can you demonstrate it will in any way make someone vote the “wrong” way? How does information at the ground level threaten your agenda?

 

Absolutely we should.

It's not "ground level" that bothers me in the slightest.

But, random story time by people who are promoting their personal point of view is not "ground level" and it's not any kind of rational analysis. It's not even possible to verify that they actually happened.

 

Analysing the responses from the OP so far everyone who has said to have died has been lumped into the “had co-morbidities” group whether or not they were known to have co-morbidities or not

I fear all this thread is is evidence of how cognitive bias works

 

Great point.

 

I don’t think this is intended to be a data set for analysis. It looks like a combination of attempting to humanize the pandemic and an attempt to verify in some way what we are being fed has any validity. Some of us, when we find we’ve been lied to repeatedly, seek verification wherever it can be found. Using one information source, especially one with a history of distortion and outright dishonesty, is dangerous.

However, I have to ask more questions you won’t be able to answer. First, where are your posts criticizing anecdotal evidence as the basis for BLM protests?

Second, where is your criticism of media using anecdotal human interest stories in reporting on the pandemic? Is it ok that they pick anecdotal data that agrees with the premise of their article? Or should they include anecdotes agreeing and disagreeing with their premise?

Lastly, can you verify that Worldometer data is accurate? How about the anecdote used by a media source? Do you ever question something claimed by an authority that directly conflicts with your personal experience? If not, why not?

 

There are penty of fact based methods of doing that - based on data that CAN be analyzed, the CAN be verified.

I have not used anecdotal evidence in support of BLM.

And, let's remember that Fox didn't just use anecdotal evidence, they worked with photoshop to create flat out lies, and then they published those lies to the world.

If you think there is anecdotal evidence being used, then you need to identify it.

Making sweeping claims like yours IS anecdotal - until such time as you can cite it.

The source of Worldometer data is known.

You can't just point to everything you see an state that it's fake. And, that is true for Trump, too, by the way.

 

Yes. We can verify all types of evidence the same way.

Ah reading comprehension issues. I did not say you did. I asked why anecdotes in this thread bother you enough to comment but their use in a national movement don’t matter to you.

Fox is part of the media. I used the term media for a reason. Because they all do it. If you care about the subject there has been formal research done on the use of statistics in combination with anecdotal evidence and how it effects people.

Has anyone in this thread passed off anecdotal evidence as anything but?

What sweeping claim?

Is that a sweeping claim? How about evidence.

Like you implied with the stories people told in this thread? And I didn’t state anything was fake, did I?

I maintain my position that there is a correlation between being of the progressive persuasion and having a lack of self awareness.

 

No. There is no one in my county that has Covid. I don't even know anyone with it in those areas that you say not to count.

None of these apply to me because I answered "No" on number 1.

 

Nonsense - I'm pointing to EVIDENCE that I don't accept those anecdotes, either.

If I were discussing these issues with someone in the press who was using anecdotal evidence, I'd bring it up with them.

And, if you use it, I'll bring that up to you.

I didnt complain about Fox using anecdoteal evidence.

I ponted out that they fabricated lies and published it as truth. And, that has been an issue in the past - it's not as if it were some singular misfire.

Also, I CITED that - including posting an image of the Fox headline that included the photoshopped lies.

No, but that's not the issue. I'm not suggesting a poster lied.

The point is that anecdotal evidence needs to be excluded - and it wasn't being excluded.

You stated that there are lots of sources that are promoting false or inaccurate information as an excuse for discussing pure and totally unverifiable anecdotes.

lol!

I would suggest that there is a correlation between being a Trump lover and working hard to defeat all verifiable sources of information, regardless of where they come from.

After all, that is clearly Trump's record starting before 2017 and following through to today.

 

But the only time you bring it up is in this thread. I’m trying to find out why.

That’s appropriate. Again, I’m just curious why the only time you’ve seemed bothered enough to bring it up is this thread.

When you said...

...the reasonable interpretation is that Fox uses anecdotal evidence and lied. Perhaps that isn’t what you meant and your Fox reference is just an irrelevant distraction. Or are you just trying to equate Fox with NBC editing the Martin/Zimmerman 911 call...as I said, media does that sort of thing. It’s their business model now.

I suspect you are correct. I’m not a Fox consumer so will take your word for it.

Hmmm. Not in our discussion you didn’t.

Ok. So you are now not concerned information in this thread can’t be verified.

Excluded from what? A thread asking for anecdotal evidence? That’s bizarre.

I used them for an excuse or to try and get you to think critically? You claim to have posted proof Fox lied, thus verifying a source promoting inaccurate information. I provided an NBC example. Now can you agree we ought to verify information in as many ways as possible and that there are in fact sources promoting falsehoods and inaccurate information?

Well, that is more conclusive evidence I’m not a Trump lover, as I’ve reminded you numerous times before. I am a fan of all sources of information. I’m still interested in you verifying Worldometer data is correct.

 

If you feel that I did, I didn't do so intentionally. Most of your post (and my response to it) was about subjective terminology.

 

Great. So are you going to keep locking down for any illness that may come your way? Better get locked down for all of Fall/Winter/Spring then. Buy up your supplies while you can... You're gonna be locked down inside your home for quite a while.

 

There is no "the science"... just science.

No, mainstream media is "don't dig at all" (pure propaganda). Asking for personal accounts is indeed digging deeper.

 

Calling some data "the best data available" does not make it good data. Counting "died with corona" as "died BY corona" to significantly inflate death counts is indeed a scare tactic.

No, it's good for one's health. They won't be so frightened and stressed out over the media's fear mongering.

 

Obviously you did not "analyze" my responses then...

 

Precisely!