Here are four more examples of Covid 19 spurious arguments (5,6,7,8)
5. The Slippery Slope
OMG. This is the mother of all Covid 19 fallacies. The slippery slope fallacy suggests that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely when there is just not enough evidence to think so.
This kind of argument is classically used by teenagers along the lines of “If you don’t let me go out tonight, I’ll end up with no friends, and become a homeless drug addict”.
This fallacious reasoning was used by Neil Ferguson to start the Covid Hysteria. He fed dubious assumptions into a computer programme, and announced that 2 million could die in the USA, and 200,000 in the UK. The same faulty reasoning was used to announce that 60,000 people could die in Ireland. This Slippery slope reasoning has dominated public policy in Ireland and around the world for over a year. Every country has a team of slippery slope panic merchants, each with a sexy acronym. In Ireland it is called NPHET. (National Public Health Emergency Team). In the UK it is called SAGE (Scientism Against Genuine Enquiry. OK, it’s not that, but some similar drivel).
In each case, the Acronym team are tasked with whipping up hysteria by stating how — its a deadly disease– cases are exploding– hospitals will be over-run– millions of people are going to die–
All of these are provably false statements. In the case of –”its a deadly disease”– and –”case numbers are exploding”– they are mutually contradictory statements. (If there are really that many cases, then it cannot be a deadly disease, as few people are dying, even with exaggerated over reporting of deaths with Covid 19)
But regardless, the Slippery Slope Fallacy is repeated ad nauseam, with considerable success. They are like Corporal Jones from Dad’s Army. “Don’t Panic!”
6. Circular Argument
When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed beforehand, it’s not arriving at any new conclusion. We call this a circular argument or circular reasoning. You can recognize a circular argument when the conclusion also appears as one of the premises in the argument.
The Covid 19 Versions of this reasoning include:
Mask wearing has been mandated because they are effective. We know masks are effective because they have been mandated all over the world.
Covid 19 is killing a lot of people because it is a deadly disease. We know Covid 19 is a deadly disease because it is killing a lot of people.
7. Hasty Generalisation
A hasty generalization is a general statement without sufficient evidence to support it. A hasty generalization is made out of a rush to have a conclusion, leading the arguer to commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration.
The simplest example of this in Covid speak is the statement that “Covid 19 is a deadly disease”.
A more accurate and honest statement would be that Covid 19 is a mild flu like disease, which is symptomless for the vast majority of people, has a 99.97% recovery rate, and is only rarely fatal. Fatalaties occur only in clearly identifyable groups like the very old people with serious pre-existing conditions.
There are also many more hasty generalisations around Covid 19.
The PCR test is a good tool to help identify cases of Covid 19.
Reality: The PCR test was never intended as a diagnostic test (per inventor of PCR test). The PCR test is returning 80% false positives, because it is set too sensitive (per microbiology experts). The PCR test does not reveal the amount of viral load, whether it is increasing or decreasing, or if the test sample reflects conditions inside the subject’s body (per HSE statement)
8. Red Herring Fallacy
A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts.
The Covid 19 version of this fallacy is the use of emotional arguments, especially those tied to the elderly. In other words, the promoters of Covid 19 lockdowns and hysteria will often make emotional statements about caring for the elderly. But in fact they are using this appeal to emotion to distract from pertinent questions about the sanity of their actions. As a result, there has been almost zero public discussion about the actual facts of how deadly Covid 19 really is. Or about the harm being done to our way of life by the extended and repeated lockdowns. Or about the death toll resulting from the stress caused by lockdowns.
The appeal to emotion connected to the elderly is in this case being used as a red herring fallacy. NPHET and other Acronym agencies are expert in using red herrings to divert us with infantile emotional distractions. At the same time, they are avoiding to answer questions about the harm they are doing. Especially to the elderly as a matter of fact.