[rusk]

I think the burden of proof is on you since you are the one contradicting the prevailing thought. You must “reject the bull hypothesis” as it were. Personally I have seen one case of a 17 y/o with lingering nerve damage covered on national news.

[zaroth]

It is logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof can only possibly be on the people claiming there is an effect.

To put it technically, it is "inappropriate to draw substantive conclusions on the basis of a lack of statistically significant effects." You are not proving the null-hypothesis, you are failing to demonstrate the alternative hypothesis.

Or to put it another way, lack of evidence is not evidence that a thing doesn't exist.

[rusk]

Ehhh but there is evidence? There are plenty of cases. It’s not even reported any more it’s a given.

[ACow_Adonis]

Not even reported any more?

My good man, i propose that outside of news stories focusing on relatively small samples and individual case studies, which generally make no comparison to other virus' comparative effects or mention of the biases inherent in their sample, it is no longer being reported because it has not yet been established.

And the reason for this is nothing conspiratorial or denialist, but just due to the fundamentals of good science: that is to say, it's REALLY REALLY hard to accurately establish the long-term effects of a novel virus that has only been around in the human population for the short-term.

[rusk]

Nicely put. I appreciate you taking the time to be civil. Such a rareity these days. A nice change from being insulted for daring to think different. For what it's worth I have evaluated some of my premises based on our exchange here. Thank you.

[ACow_Adonis]

I fundamentally disagree that I'm conflicting with prevailing thought (at least of medical experts), both because I don't accept that it's prevailing thought, but also because I'm just being proactively and constructively sceptical.

If someone proclaims to know the long term effects of a recent novel virus, that's an interesting claim. then they compare the outcomes to other viruses (or declare its fundamentally different), that's also interesting.

I've seen news articles about specific cases, and alarmist tabloid-esque case studies, but as someone who actually reads medical studies, I don't let media or hand-picked cases set my opinion, because in a pandemic with countless millions infected, and with a disease that disproportionately affects co morbid patients, of course one will find individual reports of bad cases and complications. But the information I asked for is presumably the minimum required for your claim to be justified. And if it is so "prevailing", it would be widespread and easily findable, whereas I have yet to see a single source that has them.