Corona Virus Logical Fallacies

There is a problem with experts. If you have decided to become a vegan, you quote vegan experts as proof you are right. Basically, you can find a genuine expert who believes what you have already determined to be true. For example, Peter Duesberg, the discoverer of the HIV virus, does not think it causes Aids. Our tendency to believe what we already believe is called confirmation bias:

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.^{[Note 1][1]} It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.^[2] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

There are two basic theories about the virus, Lets call them Theory A and Theory B. Theory A states that the Virus will kill millions; Theory B thinks that the virus will not be as bad as the flu. Dr Anthony Fauci said on March 11 that the Cornoa virus is 10 times as deadly as the Flu. Dr Brix thinks that it will not be so bad.

You pick your expert and take your chances.

This leads to our second logical fallacy:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.^{[citation needed]}

The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies two options (dilemma, dichotomy, black-and-white) may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" if something is reduced to only three options.

Theory A is supported by the example of Italy, where the death rate is 5%. There are several reasons why this is so. First Italy has western levels of medicine, but has fewer Intensive care beds and fewer ventilators than the rest of Europe. Spain and the UK has similar numbers. Spain is another area where the virus is more deadly, and may give the UK some to look forward to. Ukraine has the same level of machines and beds as Italy, but the care there is much inferior, this will be another future hot spot.  Italy is also relatively demographically old with over 10% of the population being over 70. Italy also tests relatively few of its people.Thus the 5% death rate is probably way too high.

Theory B is supported by the example of So. Korea where the death rate is .5%, ten times less than Italy. Korea has a massive testing program with a follow up. They test everyone that has been in contact with a virus sufferer. They then quarantine those exposed. The testing as a percentage of the total population is still relatively small, it is doubtful they caught all the cases, and this would reduce the death rate. Korea has not had a general shutdown, but has reduces public meetings especially churches. There are a lot of hospital beds in Korea per capita, second highest in the world after Japan and a little ahead of Russia. Koreans wear masks. While the reduction in catching the disease with these surgical masks is not high, it does greatly prevent the spread of the disease among the infected who wear a mask.

To chose either thoery A or B is a false dilema. It could easily, and likely, be between the two. My guess is that Theory B is going to be closer the the US Experience.

Here are the factors and the theory they support:

The rate at which the virus spreads is 2 or 3 times as fast as the flu. This is a major factor as to why the virus is so deadly.This supports theory A.

The rate of hospitalization is much higher than the flu. Since there is a lack of testing, the rate of hospitalization is not known. But clearly it is higher than the flu. This supports theory A.

The testing rate, even in Korea, is very, very low. This leads to the conclusion that the rate numbers we do have are way too high. This supports theory B.

The US hospital beds per capita are higher than Italy, but lower than Korea. This supports neither theory but somewhere in between.

The US hospital ventilators per capita are higher than Italy, but lower than Korea. This supports neither theory but somewhere in between.

In the US wearing of masks is rare. This is a combination of culture and the shortage. This supports theory A rather strongly.

The US has instituted a shutdown, almost nationwide. This means that the US may avoid a shortage of hospital beds and ventilators, at least the shortage will be reduced. New Orleans, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are going to be hard hit. This strongly supports theory B. (There will be those that say it was all unecesary if theory B is closer to the ultimate outcome. The shutdown might be the reason there was no disaster.)

The shutdown is not going to last long enough. This is because at some point the cure is worse than the disease. There are already riots in China with local police forces supporting the rioters from their own town. I doubt that Trump will get his wish and there will be normalcy by Easter. But sooner, rather than later, the shutdown will have to end. What good does it do if we save 1 million (theory A), but we allow the supply chain to stop and 100 million die. This is very, very unlikely, but shockingly, not impossible. See my previous blog post about diesel.

Social distancing is not being followed rigorously. In my last outing I saw few masks, and the line to go grocery shopping was large, and although spaced out a lot more than a usual line, the line was not following the recommended 6 feet per group. This minorly supports theory A.

I support the shut down and am doing my part since as I am 65 I am in the moderate risk category. When I do go out I wear gloves and a mask. I will have to reuse the masks I have after my next trip.

What we have is a gradient between theory A and B. I lean toward B, but there is really no way to know. What you do will help determine which theory is correct.