[mdifrgechd]

This whole discussion is a good reminder why any analysis is always subjective. If there is an actual fault in the underlying numbers, fine, but what I see reading the thread is people finding ways to justify why the data is incomplete, there are still more people dying, we need to fear covid, etc.

I've seen the articles that talk about excess deaths, and then the posts are all affirming that yes, we need to fear covid, people are dying, etc.

I think there is obvious evidence that covid is a real disease that kills people, but the cherry picked reactions that people have to data saying different things drives home that analysis is always political, not some kind of objective thing we can hold up as beyond criticism.

See climate change...

[Sporktacular]

We are seeing climate change.

[umvi]

I think OP's point is that there is a strong bias/narrative in favor of confirming climate change. Which means dissenting opinions or alternative explanations other than climate change for various phenomenon are more quickly dismissed and shut down.

For example, say a massive forest fire happens. We see people try very hard to attribute the root cause to climate change, even if the true cause is decades of fire suppression. Repeat for literally anything that could plausibly be explained by climate change.

Similarly, there is a very strong narrative/bias surrounding covid. Any data or study going against the narrative has to fight 10x as hard for survival vs. a study confirming the narrative.

This is not unique to science polarized across political parties. A similar thing happened (is still happening?) with Alzheimer's research. Basically research dissenting from the prevailing theory were systematically denied funding and shut down by the most influential figures in the field.[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225

[icedistilled]

You're confusing data with lying with statistics. See big tobacco, big oil etc.. Their statistics and data is cherry picked and portrayed deceptively. It's a big difference from good faith data. Yes, it's easy for bad actors to muddy the waters with intentionally biased and skewed data.

To equate intentionally misleading data with legitimate data and say "See data is a matter of opinion!, Why vaccinate, reduce c02, stop smoking, or anything like that!" is irresponsible.

Do you believe in vaccinations? Will you take up smoking? Can we spread lead gas fumes around your house? I'm guessing you would not be on board with those. There's a thousand more examples like that. If you aren't okay with them, then at heard you don't even agree with what you said about analysis being subjective.

[hvdfhbj]

I think this is one of those cases where everyone actually is arguing in good faith. Nobody is actually in favour of people dying, and nobody is actually in favour of imposing lockdowns just for shits and giggles.