Empirical vs Anecdotal Evidence

Let's start with the difference... Empirical evidence would be something that has been studied, observed, measured, quantified, and provides a some sort of scientific or statistical evidence that something is true. Anecdotal evidence is generally evidence that relies more on personal testimony, examples, or sometimes just stories.

On relevant example is the controversial use of Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19. Many argue that it lacks lacks the more formal studies (empirical evidence) that would generally accompany a new medical treatment. On the flip side, there seems to be much anecdotal evidence that this is working (examples of doctors and patients claiming it has helped).

Now in the case of Hydroxychloroquine the lack of empirical evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the anecdotal evidence should be ignored. Somewhere down the line, when these studies eventually have enough data to make a conclusion one way or the other, we will know for sure. But at this point there is neither enough empirical evidence to either prove or disprove the anecdotal evidence.

But in most arguments, there seems to be one side that relies more on the empirical evidence that exists and one side that loves to come flying in with personal testimony, stories, and even rumors to prove their case. This has been especially true during the Covid-19 crisis, and in a manner that has most of our empirical evidence being swarmed under and completely reduced to ashes by huge amounts of anecdotal stories that attempt to prove something else.

If you go to any number of websites that are tracking Covid-19 you will find that there is statistical data on everything from the amount of people being tested, how many are positive vs negative, how many people are hospitalized, how many people are in ICU units, how many people are on Ventilators, how many people are recovering and how many people have died.

There is a slew of raw empirical data that we can use to make all sort of conclusion based on empirical evidence. But while these websites are tracking all of this information, most of the people reporting or providing opinions tend to treat it as if it simply doesn't exist. The reporting on Covid-19 has been almost entirely anecdotally driven, rather than empirically driven.

So when you hear a "story" about Covid-19 or somebody citing some "examples" about things associated with Covid-19, ask yourself why these reporters (or rumor-mongers as it would be) are spreading anecdotal evidence rather than providing you with the numbers? Why are these reporters not reporting on the empirical data and empirical conclusions? Why are they ignoring it like it doesn't exist?

Would it possibly be  because the empirical evidence doesn't match the anecdotal story they are telling you that supposedly proves what it is that they want to be true?