Back in 1987 a voice in the wilderness, Joseph Arguelles, called for people around the world to unite for a special event, what he called a "Harmonic Convergence." He feared that cosmic forces were at work and if something wasn't done the world would end in 2012. So people responded, and in August, 1987, people gathered in various hotspots -- "energy centers," what he called "trines" -- to unite in meditation. They gathered in places like Sedona, AZ, Chaco Canyon, Mount Shasta, Stonehenge, Mount Fuji, and the Great Pyramid and drummed and chanted, "Om." (Even Johnny Carson had his studio audience chant.) And, well, I guess we all know the outcome. They did it. They saved the world. The date came and went and the world didn't end. And Transcendental Meditation was proven to be a viable and essential tool for good. Thank you very much.
There is a fundamental error here, of course. It is referred to as the "Correlation/Causation Fallacy." What the study of statistics will tell you is that correlation does not imply causation. An example. From 1924 to 1932 researchers tried to study worker productivity to find out what conditions made workers more productive. They tried a host of things and productivity would go up and they said, "Aha! We've got it!" They found, however, that when they stopped their study, productivity dropped again. Because what was increasing productivity wasn't the things they tried, but the presence of the researchers.
These days there are growing problems for individuals, families, mom and pop businesses, corporations, educational institutions, cities, states, countries -- the whole world and each of its parts -- due to the steps we've taken to stop the Wuhan virus. What we're seeing is, statistically, a decline in many places after a peak in many places. And the world groans for release. "Please, please, let us go back to normal." The experts (most, not all) sternly warn that we need to stop this virus and we need to do it this way and we need to anticipate, according to the latest experts' remarks, a few more months of an essentially total shutdown. But is this right? Is this another "Correlation/Causation Fallacy"? Is there a gradual decrease in the virus in places because we've cut off all contact or is it because that's what viruses do? Are we at the end of this virus cycle by design or by nature? Did we do the right thing and turn the tide or the wrong thing and events occurred that made it look like the right thing?
I can't say. What I can say is that it looks a lot like those late night pharmaceutical commercials. "Are you suffering from ____? Well, then, you should try our magic pill. It can save your day. (Side effects might include diarrhea, vomiting, and possible death.)" When is the cure worse than the illness? Is anyone asking the people losing their businesses, their jobs, their homes, their families, their lives, not to coronavirus, but to the treatment? Because, "Look, folks, it's working, because the numbers are peaking and dropping since we started this approach" is a "Correlation/Causation Fallacy" and we need more information to know there is any real connection between the two.
6 comments:
I've been consistent in saying that the actions taken, while possibly more than necessary, were appropriate. If for no other reason than they provided a shock to people and got some level of compliance that a lesser response might have.
Having said that it seems reasonable to conclude that since we know that the models were horribly wrong, that it might be time to re asses the actions needed going forward.
There seems to be a desire to try to force the conclusion that correlation is causation in this instance despite the evidence to the contrary.
It's interesting that we aren't seeing vast numbers of cases in the retail stores that are still open. It's interesting that we're seeing evidence that the virus hit the US much earlier than thought and is has a much lower death rate than projected.
It's interesting that You Tube has gotten rid of a video from ER docs explaining why we need to life the restrictions.
It's interesting that there's been silence on the failures of DiBlasio and Cuomo, from so many.
There seems to be so much contradiction between what we're being told and what we're seeing, that it definitely raises questions about correlation/causation.
Like I just read that Switzerland has declared that it's okay for young grandchildren to hug their grandparents now because, according to them, young children lack the receptors to even catch the virus. And we've been operating on a "one size fits all" model. I don't know if it's true that young children are immune. It is certainly true that they are far less likely to get it and have much milder symptoms if any. It just seems like, as you say, we need to reexamine the premises we've been using because what we knew in February and what we know now are miles apart.
I agree that the "one size fits all" is very rarely a good approach. It's certainly not going to be good for this situation going forward.
Clearly what's best for NYC, isn't best for other places.
I did like DiBlasio's tweet explaining why they'll be going after Jews.
Statewide we have thousands of vacant hospital beds, hundreds of ICU beds vacant, thousands of hospital workers furloughed, billions of dollars lost by hospitals and non hospital surgery centers shut down. Further, we’re seeing people not getting testing and other “non essential” care for illnesses like cancer. All this economic and physical damage with a relatively small number of Wuhan cases.
Clearly someone overreacted.
I would agree that the initial response was to some extent not totally irrational. We didn't know what we had on our hands, so overreacting was the "better safe than sorry" proper reaction. But it didn't take long to see what was going on (particularly since it's been a relatively short span of time between December and now). The more I read, the more I firmly believe there is no reason to continue any stay-at-home order, the legality of which is also in question. My state's constitution limits such to only 30 days. We're already past that and Pritzker has ordered an extension until the end of May...in a state where the economy has already been decimated by horribly bad Democratic policy! I've sent a note to him and a couple of reps, one of which (a Dem) responded defending is policy. But her defense illustrates the very causation/correlation fallacy you highlight. I believe we have evidence enough to warrant lifting stay-at-home orders. It won't lead to any more numbers of people acting responsibly or irresponsibly as existing beforehand. And through it all, the virus will do what it wants to do.
Art,
I’d argue that the bigger issue in IL, is that what’s the best option for urban Chicago, isn’t the best option for suburban Chicago, which isn’t the best option for Carbondale. It’s the typical one size approach we see to often and those implementing it don’t seem interested in the data when it doesn’t support that approach.
Post a Comment