Had a great exchange with Jason twitter and here is the exchange.
Jason: You’re definitely in the league of cherry-picking and manipulating data to support your cognitive bias, and no I am not in that league with you…agreed. Yet, your rebuttal doesn’t actual address my point. Redirecting the argument is not a “rebuttal”. Try again
Tom: I did rebut your arguments and that others. You have failed to respond to my arguments that the cost of lockdowns have been worse that dealing with the virus. Thanks for the response and will use your shallow thinking on my timeline on the failure of your thought process.
From here the tone changes
Jason: That is a different argument, and one I actually agree with you on. My point was in your depiction of infection and death rates. You disingenuously discount the fact that comparing Dem states (that have the most densely populated cities) is a false equivalence to Rep states.
Tom: I referred to studies that dealt with density of population, noted that many GOP bigger states have density and demographics to bigger blue states. Illinois and Pennsylvania are similar to Florida and other red states in per capita death.
Jason: When you use misleading data to build toward your ultimate point, your intended argument loses it’s validity and credibility. It’s unfortunate because you make some valid points…but it seems you need to take classes in argument structure.
Tom: You have missed my entire argument namely lockdowns failed to stem the infection and had higher cost to society. That was my argument and your friends failed to see that. Since you agree with them on this We may not be far apart
Jason: I’m not sure who my friends are that you are referring to. I agree with you that draconian restrictions did more harm than good in the grand scheme of things, but I think it’s a more nuance argument than what you are presenting.
Jason: I hear you. Twitter wars are futile, but I think we all need to be careful when making “seemingly” ideologic points
Tom: I was referring to Sean and Dennis who fail to see my larger point or respond to it like you are now doing. Normally I avoid twitter wars but since you are willing to look at overall data, this was worth while exchange. But I will add there are individuals like Andy Slavett who have refuses to see the damage of the lockdown.
Tom: My data is not misleading, and my argument is sound. Trust me, I had others validate my overall data. How would you make the argument?
Jason My argument, specific to population density, is that you cannot aptly compare a city like New York or Chicago to even the largest cities in red states. And even if you could, then your data should compare those cities as opposed to the states, otherwise the data is diluted
Tom: Good point but I chose states and we compared them in different ways as to ensure the best numbers possible
Tom: I am going to apologize to you since you understood my arguments but had serious question about methodology and allowed me to flush it out. Have a good day.
Jason: I appreciate that and thank you as well.
Jason had serious question about the data and we discussed my methodology. Unfortunately, these discussion end up in name calling. Certainly when some of tweeters question your intellect, do you get into a pissing contest? Jason challenge me and decided to go for it. Interesting conversation went from insults to serious discussion on methodology. I defended my methodology and he understood what I was doing. He made reasonable recommendations but I stand by our methodology and the general point. For me, it is not about just death per capita but the overall impact of the lockdown and economic restrictions.