Stop Arguing!

My last (hopefully) COVID post

No, not you, I was talking to ChatGPT and Grok.

Let me step back for a minute. It all started when I read this post by

Dan Gardner

I recognized it for the faulty logic it is but couldn’t remember what the correct term was so decided to ask Grok:

I don’t think it is an example of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” because the governments’ actions were made in response to COVID. I decided to get a second opinion from ChatGPT:

As you can see ChatGPT partially agreed with Grok but felt “begging the question” was more accurate. At this point I was starting to get the impression that I was wasting my time but as I’m always looking for a reason to go down a rabbit hole I thought I’d ask Grok if it wanted to “change it’s mind” and agree with ChatGPT:

At this point I didn’t want a repeat of my earlier AI interaction that resulted in Trump sprouting a Stalin moustache, so I decided not to waste anymore of my entire day trying to get the two AIs to agree and just go with “faulty logic.”

Note: if anyone knows the correct term for this please let me (us) know in the comments.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Regardless of the true term for this way of thinking, what is inescapable is that it is wrong. If we agree with Dan’s statement, then we are tacitly accepting that a dangerous situation gives the government carte blanche to do as it pleases. If “danger” justifies any action by the government than a whole host of responses would be acceptable. For example:

1. Over 36,000 American’s die in automobile accidents annually

2. Driving is dangerous

3. The government is justified in outlawing cars

This is obviously ridiculous. This would mean that in addition to banning driving (Lifetime Odds of Death 1 in 95), the government would also have to ban walking (pedestrian deaths - 1 in 471), swimming (drowning - 1 in 1,073), and eating solid food (chocking to death - 1 in 2,461).

Note: if you’re starting to panic relax, chances are heart disease (1:6) and cancer (1:7) will get you long before anything else does.

Beekeeping (Hornet, wasp, and bee stings - 1 in 41,076) and owning a pet (Dog attack – 1: in 44,499) seem safe enough but this does raise the question of “How do we define ‘dangerous?’” Perhaps we should use COVID to draw the line.

Based on the statistics provide by the Government of Canada the chances of dying from COVID during the pandemic were roughly 1:869. Of course, this was at the peak of the pandemic so let’s say anything that has a 1:1000 chance of killing you over your lifetime should be outlawed. Great! You can now safely swim and eat solid food again (just wait 30 minutes after eating before you get into the pool).

This type of thinking won’t fly with anyone who isn’t locked in their house using Kleenex boxes for shoes.

“Why go outside when we have urine jars right here?”

Aside from the faulty logic, it neglects the concept of cost/benefit. Cost/benefit analysis is used in financial analysis to determine how to use limited resources. With government policies it should be used because we (should) understand actions have consequences and that every decision has risks. Outlawing cars, for example, might save lives, but it would shut down the global economy. The “cost” clearly exceeds the “benefit” despite the fact that the cost (destroying the economy) and benefit (less deaths) are measured in different terms.

With COVID the government forgot (generous interpretation) or refused (critical interpretation) to remember this. What we witnessed and lived through was not a well thought out and reasonable approach to dealing with a dangerous situation that attempted to balance health, economic, and social risks, but something closer to politician's syllogism:

1. We must do something.

2. This is something.

3. Therefore, we must do this.

If any real thought was put into the policies that were employed, it followed this path:

1. What do most people (or people who vote for us) want us to do?

2. Do that

The appropriate response is of course:

1. What do current pandemic plans tell us we should do?

2. Do that

3. Evaluate and adjust as information becomes available

In the early days of the pandemic when images of body bags in Wuhan, The Lombardy region of Italy, and NY were being shown it was perfectly understandable that the government might overreact. However, within a few months it became clear that certain people were more susceptible to the disease than others and that a more targeted approach would be more effective and less economically damaging.

Returning to an earlier point by way of example, while the death rate in Canada was 1:869, we can see that deaths were not evenly distributed across all ages:

This roughly translates to:

• 50+ - 1 in 302 (slightly less likely than being the victim of gun assault but slightly more likely of being hit and killed by a car over your lifetime)

• 30-49 – 1 in 8,752 (less likely than dying of sunstroke but more likely than being killed by electrocution, radiation, extreme temperatures, and pressure)

• 0-29 – 1 in 59,021 (more likely to be killed by bees or a dog)

So, while an age-based approach to the problem would have been less costly and more effective the government instead chose to lie repeatedly (ex. vaccines are 100% safe, vaccines stop the spread, etc.), shutdown debate, close schools, force people to stay home, mandate vaccines, and strong-armed social media to suppress “malinformation” (that’s information that’s true but work against what the government wants to do).

Did the Government Overreact?

Yes.

What? You’re not going to just take my word for it?!?

Sigh. Fine

Governments pay for all kinds of studies, and many of the “dumbest” ones are highlighted in the news on a periodic basis. For example:

• $158,000 to Study Why Cows Don’t Fart

• £30,000 to Observe the Social Behavior of Hippos at a Zoo

• $375,000 to Study Why People Run Red Lights

• £200,000 to Study “Fidgeting as Workplace Exercise”

However, governments do, occasionally, sponsor useful work, and I would argue that the World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic influenza guidance would qualify as one of those. It makes sense to be prepared, doesn’t it?

As said earlier, step one in the response should have been to follow existing pandemic plans. That is why they were created after all. Here is a brief sample of WHO recommendations:

• Lockdowns - “There is insufficient evidence to support large-scale, sustained community lockdowns”; such measures carry high socioeconomic costs and may be ineffective if not implemented perfectly.

• Masking - “In community settings, healthy people should not wear masks routinely … only persons with symptoms (respiratory) or healthcare workers in certain high-risk activities should wear masks.”
  – (World Health Organization)

• School closures - only if (a) the virus was showing high severity among children (as in 2009 H1N1), or (b) local transmission was explosive—and even then, closures were advised to be short term (e.g., 1–2 weeks).
  Social Distancing – The 2017 “WHO Pandemic Influenza Risk Management” document reiterates that social-distancing measures should be timely, localized, and kept as short as possible to avoid major societal disruption.
  – (PMC)

• Vaccine Mandates - Countries should develop national allocation frameworks but rely on recommendations rather than mandates.
  – (World Health Organization)

In short, the WHO’s pandemic influenza guidance did not endorse broad lockdowns, universal masking, or mandatory vaccination for all. Instead, it recommended a layered approach of targeted actions —short-term or localized social distancing, isolation of cases, and voluntary vaccination among priority groups—while warning that prolonged or blanket measures (e.g., total lockdowns or universal mask mandates) had insufficient evidence of net benefit and carried serious social and economic risks. (World Health Organization, PMC)

In other words, what the WHO warned would happen if our governments overreacted, happened – score one for the WHO - and in the process the “expert” class (politicians, bureaucrats, etc.) managed to destroyed trust in major institutions for years to come.

Conclusion

The world is full of people who will argue that the government should be allowed to do whatever it wants in times of danger. There are many possible explanations for this type of thinking; fear, faulty logic, ideological bias (lies). Ideological bias aside, all that is really required for someone to justify government overreach is to believe it’s in your best interest. No one argues the government is justified when they disagree with the actions being taken.

Experiment:

1. Tell white collar workers, who could work from home during the lockdowns, that they owe half their lockdown income to the small business owners and blue collar workers who lost their jobs because of the lockdowns.

2. Stand back and watch as the number of people opposed to lockdowns mysteriously rises exponentially.

Fear has a way of garnering support for government policies in a way that logic and reason never can. And should the policy be excessive? “Didn’t you hear me? Killer bees and fire ants!” The actual danger is secondary to the level of fear it can generate. And if all the pain is felt by someone else, all the better.

A new danger will arise at some point. It’s inevitable. When it does you can count to two things: the first is that the government will overreact. The second is that some people will defend the government because they’re afraid. When it happens share this graphic with anyone who insists that the government is justified in doing anything it likes:

Note: Since I started this post Dan has replied stating that he did not intend to link the two statements. However, “what else was the government supposed to do?” is something I hear quite regularly so, while Dan may not have intended it that way, many people do believe this and so I decided to proceed with the article. I learned quite a bit. I hope you did too.

Thank you for reading Hoist the Black Flag

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying me a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to me.

Also, a ‘like’ really helps the Substack algorithm find me. And I’d be most grateful if you would share this piece to help Hoist the Black Flag grow.