Covid 19: Thesis and Anti-Thesis

This is an attempt to explain why CV19 policies (and it applies to many other things), has become so tribal. There are broadly two camps, those that accept the mainstream line on Cv19 and those who don’t accept it. The former support the CV19 Thesis and the latter are Anti-thesis.

Covid 19 Thesis:

CV19 is believed to be a serious threat to public health many magnitudes greater than even a bad flu.

Promoted by the mainstream media; the main social media channels; most Governments; most opposition parties; global bodies e.g. WHO; large pharmaceutical companies

Those who differ in their opinion are characterised by those who promote the thesis as Covid-deniers; anti-vaxxers; conspiracy theorists and even by some as potential murderers (granny-killers).

The condensed view of the Covid 19 thesis believers is that lockdowns both work and are required; masks work and need to be mandated; vaccines are safe and should be mandated across most/all age ranges to protect both themselves & others; and vaccine passports should be mandated so that things can open-up faster and pressure people into getting vaccinated. In summary, heavy societal controls and restrictions are needed as CV19 is more dangerous than any downsides the restrictions bring.

CV19 Anti-thesis

CV19 is not sufficiently serious to warrant the level of response seen. It is barely more serious than a bad flu season and badly affects only the very elderly (average age of CV19 death is 82) or those with specific long-term conditions that make them generally more vulnerable to any and all viruses.

This idea is not promoted by any large mainstream or social media organisations but there are many individual scientists, doctors and others who can be found on social media who believe that the response to CV19 has been exaggerated, inappropriate & ultimately counter-productive. The differing approaches across the world with no correlation between cases/hospitalisations/death outcomes and the levels of restrictions or vaccinations imposed is cited as evidence.

Those who differ in their opinion to CV19 anti-thesis believers are characterised as Government shills; unthinking sheep; fear-mongers and selfish dictatorship enablers.

The condensed view of the Covid 19 anti-thesis believers is that lockdowns are not needed and don’t work; masks have so little efficacy as not to be worth wearing; vaccine passports are simply a way to divide society with no proven benefit; in the near future we can expect to see a scapegoating of the unvaccinated and that we are on the precipice of a slippery slope that leads to increasingly draconian biopolitical control measures, the grip of which is unlikely to release, even when the pandemic is over.

In summary, more societal damage (across the economy, non-CV19 health, mental health, education and civil liberties) is done by heavy restrictions than by Cv19 itself.

Can we find a way forward?

Both of the above perspectives have some validity.
However, in anything but the most simplistic of situations, extreme views are ALWAYS wrong to one extent or another because they attempt to simplify the complex in a way that misses crucial factors.

We all have lives to lead which take up a lot of our energy, both physical and mental. It’s a form of self-preservation to simplify things down so that we can integrate them into our lives with minimal effort. We want to reach a situation, and quickly, wherein we have decided what ‘the answer’ is, so that we can stop having to think about it.
Our natural reaction to anyone suggesting that our answer may be wring is usually to push-back and double-down. Any thinking we do tends to be simply justifying to ourselves why it’s ok to carry on believing as we already do.

Put simply, and for various psychological reasons, we hate having to change our minds, especially on important issues.

Now clearly, this is less than ideal in terms of being open-minded and being less susceptible to propaganda. But as long as we know and acknowledge that’s what we do, so that when serious complex issues arise, we are consciously aware of our over-simplified biases, we at least have a chance of discussing things open-mindedly, rather than taking the easy but divisive route of simply seeing anyone with a differing opinion as either stupid or evil.

Neither the thesis or anti-thesis view of Cv19, when held tribally and uncritically, is right, and we do ourselves no favours in the long-run by closed-mindedly choosing a side and refusing to consider reasonable questions and concerns from the ‘other’ side.

We need to be able to synthesise a reasonable way through this which doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater or end in one side feeling totally victorious and the other totally defeated. Becoming either a tyrant or a slave are not good options.

The problem is that there is no arena for a sensible, good-faith discussion.

It could be done by the mainstream or social media, but these organisations have nailed their colours to the mast and are actively censoring views and individuals that don’t agree with their chosen position.
Governments could do it but again, they don’t want to be seen as uncertain or vacillating, so they also tend to nail their colours to one mast or another.
Global quangos like the WHO or the UN could do it but sadly, they are so riven with internal & geo-politics and vested interests that it doesn’t happen there either.

So it is left to small independent thinkers like Jonathan Haidt or the you tube channel Rebel Wisdom, to try and bring some reasonable thinking into difficult areas.
All any individual can do is support these reasonable thinkers and do what we can on social media in our small way. We can also try to introduce other perspectives into conversations.

What is the kind of thinking we need to move forward collegiately?
Well in simple terms it means not insisting upon winning; not insisting on being right; being aware of the danger of all of our thinking being merely rationalising why it’s ok to go on believing what we already do without asking often obvious questions and genuinely trying to see the other point of view.
It requires, ‘yes, and..’ or ‘true but only partially’ or ‘ok, but what if…’ or ‘ok but perhaps we could consider this as well…’

Politically, it comes down to how we want to organise our society.
Do we want: 1. as much genuine democracy as possible? This requires high levels of openness and public discussion and involvement;
2. Occasional democracy interspersed by a virtual dictatorship? Where the elected Government gets to do basically whatever it likes until the next election;
Or 3. no democracy at all? Accepting that a ruling class know what’s best and the rest of us happily just do as we’re told – something foreseen by Aldous Huxley.

What we must have is genuine open and honest debates on vital societal issues. Otherwise, we will find that those with power and influence change our society without us having any meaningful say.

As well as books and you tube interviews by Jonathan Haidt and the Rebel Wisdom channel, I would suggest certain books to read. They are all available on kindle for well under £10 (actual books more expensive). They explain how we think and how easily we can be influenced:

Influence by Cialdini
Think Fast, Think Slow by Kahneman
Mistakes were made but not by me by Tarvis et al