top | item 33187478

(no title)

The implication was that these anecdata tales exist on both sides, especially one of just ONE singular anecdote.

I wasn't implying that covid is fake or the vaccine is harmful, although I have my own reservations. The point was singular data points exist on both sides.

discuss

John23832|3 years ago

And in order to show that "other side" you would need to provide some data that implies that "covid is fake", "the vaccine is harmful", "that is much to do about nothing". The original idea presented was that covid was the cause of the thread owners issues. Presenting other data while saying "Anecdata can go all ways" is saying "no it was not". Stop hiding behind "both sides".

You can't "both sides" something that is presented as quantitative fact (binary outcomes are quantitative), you either agree with it or disagree with it. So your implication is that you disagree with the quantitative fact presented.

jfc. Say what you want with your chest. Stop being coy.

phpthrowaway99|3 years ago

When I said other side, I didn't mean the exact other side of OPs view about long covid. I meant the other complete side of the covid spectrum.. aka the anti vaxers.

Maybe I wrote it poorly, technically English is my second language although I've been here for a long time.

My point is, these singular personalized emotional data points exist all over, on both sides of the spectrum. That's all.

Regarding me being coy... Sure, I'm so coy I'm taking probably the most hated position on this site. I suppose I should just open with "As a covid vaccine sceptic, " and have people shut down instantly instead.