Yesterday, I drank a little too much and pulled my hamstring. Today, I tackle the issue that everyone has been preoccupied for the last few weeks. The Coronavirus. Or more specifically a new breed of armchair journalists. The Coronavirus truthers. While this might be a controversial topic, I don't care. I think talking about controversial topics is fun.
Before we jump into the more contentious part of this blog post, I will acknowledge that skepticism is a healthy and important part of a rational person's diet. Ideas that aren't challenged can turn into "dead dogmatism" as philosopher John Stuart Mill once noted. Clarifying the facts, agreeing on definitions and finding the principles that underlie our disagreements are important to getting closer to the truth. We must be ready to state our premise, build our case, and then make conclusions based on the evidence we are provided with. These are the building blocks of rational thought. So, with that introduction, I introduce the perspective which I like to view ideas with.
Hanlon's Razor basically states that one shouldn't view actions with malice that can be adequately explained through stupidity. My slightly revised viewpoint is that most negatively perceived behavior can be explained through the ignorance or selfishness of individuals or both. In some cases, selfishness will make one ignorant to certain viewpoints as they have little impact over that individual's being. If you can't see where this is going, while I remain skeptical of some of the information and perspectives I get from different sources, I'm not going to immediately assume there is some negative or deceptive agenda in place.
One of the main arguments that I see being passed around is the argument that the coronavirus is comparable to the flu. First off, let us remember that skepticism is good. Given a fresh slate, this is a perfectly fine starting point to argue from. But this comparison begs for hard numbers rather than anecdotal evidence. The problem with anecdotal evidence being that is it too localized that one can't make meaningful generalizations from it due to a low sample size or uncharacteristic population. So we really need some hard numbers to make a good argument.
But hard numbers alone don't suffice. Because different numbers have different contexts. The scales of time are often different in comparisons. The number of flu deaths over a year isn't comparable to coronavirus deaths until at least next year. There are also different conditions. Even if the numbers were similar, it would be hard to justify a comparison given the lockdown conditions many are experiencing now. In order to make a rational case that these two are similar, one must take in consideration variables like this and attempt to eliminate factors that undermine the validity of the numbers being compared.
Another position that I have seen is that the numbers are being misreported or fabricated. This is another interesting position that is a valid position to take, but a harder one to justify. One must provide some evidence beyond a unsubstantiated conspiracy theory in order to undermine the premise or assumption that these numbers are reliable. Otherwise you have an unsupported position. Now it is very tempting to suggest some government or group of people have motive to commit such actions, but people don't go to prison based solely on motives. You need evidence. Whistleblowers or insiders that have substantial proof or evidence would be a good start. Some of the doctors from China that initially raised concern about the virus's existence would be a good example of a whistleblower. Given the information age we live this shouldn't be too hard to find.
But maybe the government is good at keeping whistleblowers silent (Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning). Or maybe they are so good at hiding the truth there are no whistleblowers. Given the initial position of dismissal of the virus's seriousness and then sudden turnaround to complete lock-down, Hanlon's Razor would suggest ignorance and under-preparedness are the main culprits here. That many people and media members were simply caught off guard and were desperate to fix the mistake they had made and now needed
to attempt to control something that was now much hard to control.
Is the lockdown too much? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. People simply don't know. When the threat (or supposed threat) of hundreds of thousands of citizens dying exists, politicians who belief in the threat are going to take drastic measures to save their under-prepared asses. It is also an easier decision to make when you realize there are not enough masks or medical supplies to go around. It's hard to attribute malice to something that appears so poorly thought out and unorganized. And it is even harder to conspire in such environments. But perhaps my perspective is wrong, and I am looking through the wrong lens. Maybe we know nothing.
Then it's up to a personal risk assessment. Until the virus (if it exists) makes a local impact on you, you will be devoid of evidence to make a definitive decision. Given the evidence, a cautious approach may reduce some personal upside, while significantly reducing the potential huge downside. While I'm not saying locking everyone down is the correct approach, staying away from people when possible, wearing masks, and frequently washing hands seems like relatively minor adjustments that could be made to eliminate downside from a virus if it happens to be worse than you might believe it to be.