But your question says far more about a certain attitude than any answers to the question can tell us about the pandemic. It's an attitude that trusts anecdotal information more than scientifically gathered data and calculated statistics. It's an attitude where a conversation like this makes sense: "I don't know anyone who has the virus, and you don't either, so I guess this is much ado about nothing. Reopen the country already."
My family are believers in immunization, if that the question you’re getting at.
Talk about jumping the gun. You guys seem almost triggered by the question. Calm down. I don't know why you would think that about me.
But there are a few names we have all heard of that have declared positive. Boris Johnson, Tom Hanks, Prince Charles. You might care to add to this list.
you apparently think a sample size of one observer of how many known infected people there are is somehow meaningful
It may seem that asking one person this question is not significant, but what if I had asked a hundred people or a thousand - and what if I had asked them all individually. The sample size would then be more meaningful and could be used for extrapolation.
As it happens, even though I had asked you personally, several others offered their own experiences voluntarily - already adding to the sample size.
Why prejudge the intention of the question in this way and bite my head off like that. The only reason I can imagine is that you are confident that I could not have asked this question to a hundred people and certainly not a thousand because they too would have bitten my head off. Such is the nature of society today.
Do you have some other reasoning for your questions that you care to share?
Actually, I wasn't steering the conversation in any direction. I know it's hard to believe right. It was a straight forward question that deserves a straight forward answer.
It doesn't even matter whether my question was a good one or a bad one because what it is most fascinating and interesting was the response to it. It mirrors what a top conspiracy journalist once wrote when he stated - "Can't win the debate? Then don't have it".
you're trying to cast doubt upon something that has already been unequivocally established nine ways from Sunday
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" - I never questioned the veracity of the mainstream claims about the coronavirus. We know the coronavirus is real and causes about 20% of cases of the common cold. This particular strain of course is less well established. Your repeated defence though of something that never was under attack makes me think that perhaps you are beginning to doubt your own narrative?