[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.