Applying Philosophy, Logic, and Rational Argumentation to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Pandemic Response

Abstract

Part of philosophy is to subject assertions to critical scrutiny, clarifying exactly what the assertion is saying, its implications, and thus its direct plausibility. The goal is to ensure clarity, logical consistency, and rational argumentation in order to arrive at reasoned conclusions. A common problem is that arguments have missing implied premises that, unless explicitly stated, are mistakenly assumed to be true. Here we subject conclusions made regarding the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to critical scrutiny, revealing their implied premises so that these premises can be explicitly examined and refuted. Specifically, we refute the conclusions that “no one is protected until everyone is protected” and “population lockdowns are required to protect those at high risk of adverse outcomes.” In the end, we argue for the conclusion that “an Emergency Management principles based response to the pandemic, compared to population-wide lockdowns, offers a way to prevent more adverse outcomes from COVID-19, better prevent overwhelmed healthcare, and prevent most of the collateral damage to the wellbeing of the population that has resulted from the lockdowns.”

When Claims of ‘Revisionism’ and ‘Misinformation’ are Themselves Misinformed: Implications for Policy Decision-Making

“…This included the Caulfield et al (2021) response to an early newspaper editorial by Joffe and Redman (2021a) who proposed an Emergency Management response to the pandemic with 3 priorities (protect concentrations of high-risk seniors; enact surge capacity in hospitals; and replace fear with confidence). The response misrepresented arguments (creating easy Straw Man arguments to defeat, without engaging with the evidence), and contained inaccuracies that exaggerated the threat from COVID-19 and minimized the harms from lockdowns (Joffe and Redman 2021b). Third, over the course of the pandemic knowledge accrued that seemed to be ignored and was not adopted into timely adjustment of policies (Paul et al 2022).…”

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

“…While in the last 25 years, 1.1 billion people were lifted from poverty through economic growth ( 222 ), during the COVID-19 crisis global extreme poverty rose sharply and in October 2021 it was estimated that 100 million additional people were living in poverty ( 223 ). Very early on in the pandemic, warnings were expressed that the negative effects may outweigh possible positive ones ( 10 – 12 , 57 ) and ways to optimize decision-making ( 13 ) and alternative ways forward were offered ( 6 , 224 ). Note that other authors disagree and argue that the NPIs are proportional and have substantial benefits [e.g., ( 225 , 226 )].…”