Entry 2152, on 2021-09-17 at 21:04:59 (Rating 3, Politics)
There's nothing more dangerous than someone who is absolutely convinced that they are right, especially when the subject of their certainty is something extreme, pure, or simplistic. And it gets far worse when this person labels all of those who do not follow their beliefs as evil or inadequate in some way.
We should all have questions about what we believe, and if we are going to make extreme and absolute statements, we should be careful about the way we express them.
Let me give an example. Here is a tweet I recently read, and responded to in a mildly critical way: "We need to pursue elimination [of COVID] behind closed borders until every single person has had a vaccine within the past six months. Anything else is morally repugnant."
There are two problems with this, as I suggested in my introduction. First, it is a very absolute statement on morality, expressed in a way which leaves no room for disagreement. And second, it is phrased in a very simplistic way, which I suspect even the writer doesn't really believe.
So let's cover the second point first. This person is suggesting we need very aggressive measures to eliminate COVID from the community. They go on to say that we need to do this until every person has been vaccinated in the last 6 months. This is silly, of course, because it is impossible to make sure everyone is vaccinated, even if everyone wanted to be (which they don't). Some people will resist, others will have health issues which prevent vaccination, and it is doubtful whether it is physically possible to buy and dispense enough vaccine to ensure everyone is vaccinated within that time period anyway.
So even if we did agree with the first part - that we should put extreme measures in place to try to eliminate the virus - we would find that it can't be done anyway, at least not in the way this person is saying.
But beyond that is a bigger point: should we be pursuing an elimination strategy anyway, and if we didn't, is that morally reprehensible in some way?
I would say, even when being most generous to this idea, that it is one possible response which may or may not have merit depending on your assumptions and your general philosophy on life. In no way is pursuing an alternative strategy morally repugnant, although there might be some possible alternative actions which some (and maybe a majority) would see as hugely problematic.
Here's a few problems with elimination...
First, is it even possible? New Zealand did manage to eliminate the original infection, but the delta variant is so much more infectious that it seems possible that no realistic measures can eliminate it completely. As far as I know, no other country has. We do have many advantages here in New Zealand which might make elimination possible, but it is far from certain.
Second, if it was eliminated, what then? Do we stay in a lower level lockdown? Do we stop visitors? Where does it all end? It is only a matter of time before the virus returns unless we literally completely close ourselves off from the rest of the world indefinitely, and that isn't a realistic option.
Third, are we prepared for the negative consequences of the lockdown and other measures which would be necessary to eliminate the current outbreak, and to prevent re-infection? I suspect people can only be pushed so far, and that eventually they will cease being as compliant as the majority are today.
Finally, is the delta variant so bad that we should be putting this much effort into eradicating it? We have had about 1000 cases so far here in New Zealand, but only one death, and that was of a very frail, elderly peron who might have not have been expected to live long anyway. It is possible that COVID isn't quite as bad as certain people are saying it is.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try for elimination, and I'm not saying we shouldn't aim for complete vaccination. What I am saying is that there are very good reasons to not attempt elimination, and that a lower target for vaccination is far more realistic. And that leads to my main point: anyone who doesn't agree with the writer's statement (the necessity for elimination, and by implication, the draconian measures necessary to pursue this strategy until we have complete vaccination) isn't immoral or repugnant, they just have a different view on the subject.
You might make a case to say that some people would think that certain alternative actions are morally repugnant. For example, if I said that everyone who gets COVID should be thrown into a quarantine facility where they were isolated and received no treatment, I might expect many people would find that morally repugnant. But even that is just an opinion, although it is one I might share. Less severe alternative opinions are far less problematic, and deserve fair consideration.
I recently discovered a phrase which I think summarises a lot of my thoughts on modern political conflict. It is "The truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Look at our most important source of truth, science (yes, I know some people would disagree). It thrives on challenges to conventional wisdom. Anyone who successfully challenges and overthrows an existing "truth" will be celebrated. OK, I know that some scientists are resistant to new ideas, but I am talking about science done properly. And yes, I also know it is never done completely properly, but at least the underlying idea is solid.
Compare that with the writer of the tweet who effectively dismisses all challengers by claiming their ideas are "morally repugnant". Note that they didn't say "morally repugnant to me", they made an absolute claim as if it had some objective truth. Well, it doesn't.
So anyone who doesn't allow their views to be questioned should be viewed with great skepticism. They aren't necessarily wrong, but the inability or unwillingness to accept challenges often indicates an underlying dishonesty, because a "lie does not like being challenged".
And the idea that the truth doesn't mind being questioned is an interesting example of cause and effect. It might appear that the truthfulness makes challenges OK, but it is more the other way around: anything which allows challenges will be corrected if it is wrong or inaccurate, so it is the challenge process which creates the truth through iterations of challenge and correction.
So, should we be using an elimination process until we have a 100% vaccination rate within 6 months? No, that would be a fair option if it was possible, but it isn't. Should we go for elimination until a significant fraction of people (say 90%) are vaccinated? Well sure, that is possible, and an option worth considering. Should we forget the whole idea of elimination, and just go for a certain level of control instead? Well, maybe. That is a perfectly fair option, and not morally repugnant at all - at least not for most sensible people.
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE