undefined | Better HN

0 pointsadam_arthur4y ago0 comments

What data to fit my conclusion? I'm referencing hard data, and the dissenters here are not.

If you disagree, use hard data to support your assertions that vaccines have noticeably reduced infection rate.

The one following the science is the one using the data, by the way. Anything else is religion.

0 comments

You're not referencing any data at all, just handwaving at it. You're only comparing the raw infection rates without taking into account the amount of mitigating measures such as mask mandates, work-from-home orders, and closing of schools, restaurants and bars. Last year's numbers were all achieved with very stringent lockdowns and school closures; pretty much all those countries returned to classroom teaching in September of this year.

So no, you don't get to claim "hard data" on your opinion.

adam_arthurOP4y ago

I stated that case counts today are roughly equivalent to pre-vaccine times in most countries

This is called verifiable data.

Also the numbers in the US south are roughly equivalent to the east/west that had much more stringent lockdown, mask, and vaccine measures.

If these policies had any significant impact, you would see a large disparity in outcomes of TX, FL, vs NY, CA.

This is also verifiable data. Prove me wrong with data showing FL and TX had worse outcomes in regards to infections to blue states with strict measures.

If you can't show a significant difference in outcome, reassessing your firmly held beliefs that have been proven wrong through data is called "following the science".

Most lockdown proponents are following religion, and what they desire to be true, than science.

tremon4y ago

You stated that "We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts". This is called making misleading claims.

There's numerous confounding factors in these numbers that you conveniently ignore, and that you keep ignoring even when they're pointed out to you. This is called doubling-down on an indefensible position.

Then, instead of defending why your use of those numbers is scientifically sound, you accuse others of having "firmly held beliefs". This is called a personal attack.

And lastly, instead of doing the hard work to show why your conclusion is scientifically sound, you expect the other party to disprove your argument for you. This is called trolling.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tremon4y ago

So no, you don't get to claim "hard data" on your opinion.

adam_arthurOP4y ago

I stated that case counts today are roughly equivalent to pre-vaccine times in most countries

This is called verifiable data.

Also the numbers in the US south are roughly equivalent to the east/west that had much more stringent lockdown, mask, and vaccine measures.

If these policies had any significant impact, you would see a large disparity in outcomes of TX, FL, vs NY, CA.

This is also verifiable data. Prove me wrong with data showing FL and TX had worse outcomes in regards to infections to blue states with strict measures.

If you can't show a significant difference in outcome, reassessing your firmly held beliefs that have been proven wrong through data is called "following the science".

Most lockdown proponents are following religion, and what they desire to be true, than science.

tremon4y ago

You stated that "We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts". This is called making misleading claims.

Then, instead of defending why your use of those numbers is scientifically sound, you accuse others of having "firmly held beliefs". This is called a personal attack.

And lastly, instead of doing the hard work to show why your conclusion is scientifically sound, you expect the other party to disprove your argument for you. This is called trolling.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse