▲ 441 ▼ Vaccine politics may be to blame for GOP excess deaths, study finds (wapo.st) submitted 3 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) Maybe, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case, but the point is the study doesn't actually prove it and it admits that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's never going to be provable, that's why it's measured as excess deaths. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (2 children) I understand the study's basic methodology. It doesn't change my point. And I don't know that it's never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn't, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 years ago You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) You are missing the entire point of looking at excess deaths. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) No, I'm not. Ironically, I think you are. But I'm tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDeadGuy@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I agree with you, it's in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched permalink fedilink source parent
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) It's never going to be provable, that's why it's measured as excess deaths. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (2 children) I understand the study's basic methodology. It doesn't change my point. And I don't know that it's never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn't, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 years ago You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) You are missing the entire point of looking at excess deaths. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) No, I'm not. Ironically, I think you are. But I'm tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDeadGuy@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I agree with you, it's in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (2 children) I understand the study's basic methodology. It doesn't change my point. And I don't know that it's never going to be provable. Maybe with enough data we could find a very subtle pattern that proves it. The point is, this study doesn't, nor do any of the others on their own, but they collectively provide evidence that the hypothesis may be true. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 years ago You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) You are missing the entire point of looking at excess deaths. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) No, I'm not. Ironically, I think you are. But I'm tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDeadGuy@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I agree with you, it's in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 years ago You realise you’ve just described science there. Nothing can ever be conclusively proven, you can only disprove it, or build more evidence for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) You are missing the entire point of looking at excess deaths. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) No, I'm not. Ironically, I think you are. But I'm tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDeadGuy@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I agree with you, it's in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) No, I'm not. Ironically, I think you are. But I'm tired of debating this with people. It says it in the linked article. Debate with the authors of the study if you want to. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheDeadGuy@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I agree with you, it's in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheDeadGuy@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago I agree with you, it's in the article. Not sure why people are injecting a new thesis instead of discussing the one presented and researched permalink fedilink source parent