Originally Posted by
Firefighterpilo
Hey I will not try to change anyone’s opinion via the internet. This is what I do for a living and isn’t “anecdotal evidence”.
"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."
Like it or not, your evidence is anecdotal. This isn't to say that anecdotal evidence is always wrong or can't be relied on, but rather that it cannot be used to extrapolate the bigger picture. Your evidence is anecdotal because it is entirely based on your personal experience. That's what anecdotal means.
Originally Posted by
Firefighterpilo
It would be like if I sent you scientific studies about the danger human error causes in aviation and how we should immediately move to unmanned aircraft, even though I know how often humans have to save the computers from crashing an airliner. Do you put this much stock in the media and “experts” when they report on aviation? Especially after an accident when they are just pushing click bait?
First, I don't think you could find a scientific study that advocates for an immediate transition to unmanned aircraft. Automation isn't there yet and couldn't be applied at that level to existing airframes. Show me an example of a scientific article getting it this wrong. Secondly, this is a false parallel. There's a big difference between the Channel 7 news reporting on an aviation incident and an epidemiologist from Yale offering his assessment of data from the pandemic. Thirdly, I choose to use critical thinking when assessing a source. That means being suspicious of what they argue. This does not mean rejecting news sources with information I don't like simply because I don't like it. I also don't think any of the articles I posted qualify as clickbait
Originally Posted by
Firefighterpilo
This whole thing was overblown and anyone with a shred of intelligence and integrity is walking back on the whole initial Covid Worse case scenarios.
The Covid worst case scenarios were based on society continuing on as normal during the pandemic. Of course the estimates are off, because society drastically altered course and there has been a prolonged shutdown. That doesn't mean the models are wrong, just that the assumptions underpinning them are no longer accurate. It's disingenuous and dishonest to point to those models as being so far off when they were meant to predict what was going to happen if nothing was done.
In any case, I don't understand how 100,000+ deaths over the course of three months can be looked at as something insignificant. We started a 19 year long war in Afghanistan after 9/11, which resulted in 2,000 deaths, but now these 100,000 don't matter? Fewer people died in Vietnam, so I guess we can get rid of the memorial and forget about that conflict because it was just a blip in the grander scheme of things, right?
Originally Posted by
Firefighterpilo
By all means stay afraid and be sure and convince all your friends and family how dangerous it is. Make sure they don’t travel or fly because that is just too risky. It’s your career and furlough, not mine anymore.
And the final strawman. Because I care about the unnecessary loss of my countrymen's life and relying on data rather than emotion, I'm a coward? Really? Nothing I've said has advocated that we all need to be afraid. I've merely disputed the notion that the death toll is inflated, because the data does not bear that out.
In fact, I'm all for starting the economy backup, and I think the shutdowns should be lifted. I am not afraid, but I also think reasonable precautions should be taken, such as wearing masks and social distancing when possible. There is a middle ground between hysteria and denial, but it seems like you guys think it has to be one or the other. Things don't have to be so black and white, and just because I don't think 100,000+ dead Americans is insignificant doesn't make me a coward.