Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:I know several people who have contracted it, I have not had a documented case.
Oh, ok. So you have no experience with COVID-19 yourself. Glad you have not contracted the virus yet.
I didn’t say I have no experience with Covid. I said I’ve not had a
documented case. My personal experience, or lack thereof, is immaterial because I am not basing my arguments on anecdotal evidence, but rather using scientific evidence and statistics.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
jimboston wrote:but again you realize your individual experience is just one data point and irrelevant like most anecdotal evidence. No?
No. Personal testimony is not an irrelevant factor. The answer to all the below questions is a resounding
no.
Personal testimony from large numbers of people, documented and vetted and analyzed, may have some value.
Individual testimony used to define a wider problem rarely has value.
Here’s some personal testimony from me, that extrapolated makes no sense.
*I’ve never been hurt by a car, so cars can’t hurt people.
*I’ve been in a knife fight, gotten stabbed, but was fine... didn’t even need stitches. So knife fights aren’t dangerous.
*I got pneumonia when I was younger and lived, so pneumonia doesn’t kill people.
*I used to dirt bike and do crazy stunts, I fell a few times but was never seriously hurt. We didn’t wear helmets or knee pads in the 70’s either. Therefore you can’t get hurt doing dirt bike stunts and helmets/pads are useless.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
- Would you listen to someone who is single, never married, give you marriage advice?
- Would you listen to someone who has never owned a firearm give you gun advice?
- Would you listen to someone who is extremely obese give you advice on how to workout and have a healthy body?
- Would you listen to someone who has never contracted COVID-19 give you COVID-19 advice, and tell you your personal experience is irrelevant?
Personal advice from people in similar situations has value for personal decisions in some cases, if not taken to extremes. Personal anecdotal situations do not translate well when implementing policy decisions that affect that lives of millions of people; people in different living situations, with different health issues, with different genetics, of different ages, interacting with different people in different ways.
If I am making policy decisions I wouldn’t listen to the anecdotal experience of any of these people. I would listen to data culled and presented in a scientific manner. I would listen to rigorously vetted data regardless of the personal experience of the individual presenting the data.
Here’s anecdotal evidence that could lead to bad policy decisions...
*Married woman who has a cheating/wife beating husband.
-> Policy decision extrapolation... end the institution of marriage. Don’t let men near women.
*Gun owner one day he forgets to put his guns away, and his son and son’s friends are playing with the guns and someone gets shot.
-> Policy decision extrapolation... take away every’ s guns.
*One guy on an Internet Forum gets Covid and only gets a little sick.
-> Policy decision extrapolation... Covid isn’t dangerous and we don’t need to take measures to slow the spread.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
What's the common far-leftist argument? "You can't tell me what my protest means to me?" Well, you can't tell me what my COVID-19 experience means to me.
I wouldn’t know, I’m not a leftist and don’t blindly follow any general arguments.
I don’t care what your Covid Experience means to you. I also don’T think your INDIVIDUAL Covid experience has any bearing on public policy.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
jimboston wrote:Well yeah... then you said that “based on your own personal (sic. anecdotal) experience you think the shutdown is unwarranted.
So if, even with the shutdown, we lost nearly 300,000 people so far... explain to me how i’m reading into your statement and it’s not implied?
Because me stating my opinion that a lockdown does nothing does not disenfranchise those who have lost their lives? The lockdown didn't slow the spread, nor drop the death ratio/curve. If the first wave of lockdowns were effective, then why are we having a second set of lockdowns? If the first wave of lockdowns were ineffective, then why are we having a second set of lockdowns?
My point about lockdowns is unrelated to those who have passed away due to COVID-19. How dare you try to pin me with guilt with the deaths of those who have died due to COVID-19.
I ain’t trying to pin anything on you.
I could answer these questions, but only if you’re willing to listen. The lockdown was never going to stop the spread, and (where it’s been consistently followed) it has slowed the spread. The biggest problem is people like you who deny the masks and the spread and just go around infecting people.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
You should be ashamed of yourself, Jim.
Ashamed for ex-paining facts to someone who doesn’t like them?
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Quite frankly, I'm tired of your malicious attitude. This will be my last response to you for a very long time.
That’s what I am hoping for.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
jimboston wrote:You’re right it wasn;t implied... it was pretty clearly stated... basically because you didn;t get sick too bad then we shouldn’t worry about 300,000 dead and we should open everything up and stop using masks.

Jim, honestly. You are reaching extremely far here. If I clearly state what you say, then go and find the quote where I say we shouldn't worry about the people who have died. You're not going to find it.
I think the forum agrees with me.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
jimboston wrote:There’s a similar death ration or maybe less... it’s the speed of spreading that’s the problem
COVID-19 spreads just like the flu. If the death ratios and the spread is extremely similar, why have we never ever locked down for the flu? Because the flu is not a virus worth locking down over. And neither should COVID-19 be.
The spread is NOT similar. Learn to read.