Question

...
Jack

Covid Concerns: Fallacies or strong argument?

Here is an argument of mind I recently presented to my local member of parliament with some stuff edited out for privacy reasons:

 

I am writing to ask if we can have stricter mitigations in place so as to reduce the risks of people getting infected by those that either refuse a vaccine and/or refuse to wear a face covering. I will be going back to work soon and I am concerned that some colleagues will refuse a vaccine for wild reasons that lack any evidential basis. What I propose in this situation is that it become mandatory that they provide a regular negative lateral flow test.

As for face coverings, our new company policy states that if you are exempt, you can wear a face visor. However, as several scientists have pointed out during this pandemic face visors do absolutely nothing to reduce the spread of covid. And I fear that some of my colleagues may use this new policy to only wear a face visor despite the fact that they managed to wear face masks with no trouble throughout last year. If they do this, they are significantly putting people at risk like myself who has a long-term health condition as well as the people I live with who also have long-term health conditions.

Furthermore, we are based in a fairly small working environment making social distancing difficult. It is, therefore, even more, imperative that face coverings are worn.

Moreover, if a person is so vulnerable that they cannot wear a face mask then it stands to reason that they should be shielding as much as reasonably possible anyway. The exemption of face coverings acts as a loophole that has and will continue to be abused by those that simply just don't want to wear one. If we want covid reduced as much as and as quickly as possible, and the avoidance of another lockdown, etc then this is where strict mitigation is needed.

To conclude, I propose making it mandatory that those that refuse vaccinations provide regular negative lateral flow tests, face visors being deemed unsuitable for reduction of covid risk, and that face masks continue to be worn at all times in working environments where social distancing is proving difficult. 

asked on Thursday, Mar 04, 2021 04:51:44 PM by Jack

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
-1
Citizen Irrelevant writes:

I feel this post is inappropriate here in a forum devoted to reason and logic.  The subject matter itself is n dispute, and highly-politicized at this stage.  Although I detect in a cursory reading many instances of inherent bias in this post, I find that irrelevant.  Questions posted here should be concise, performed with brevity and clarity, and focused on the topic of LOGIC.  This post is far too lengthy, not particularly well written, and seemingly advances the writer's POV on this issue.  There are forums online which address COVID, and this loosely spun diatribe would be better housed there.

posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 11:40:41 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Joe Knee
2

There is an innumerable amount of fallacies that have constantly been repeated throughout this whole "Pandemic"; I'll list a few if you are interested at all in logic ... but ... odds are you will repeat the same errors in the rejection of this reply. 
1) Appeal to Authority - You act as if there has any amount of actual science done here when the record indicates that no testing has been done to even isolate this "virus" to approach a scientific demonstration of this conclusion without any proof.

2) Appeal to Common Belief - As noted above you believe what the "experts" have said although other experts just as qualified have appealed to the real scientific method and yet are ignored - because they do not carry the clout that the others have.

3) Appeal to Consequences - It's amazing to me that Government types makes these horrific errors in logic and then expect everyone to comply merely because they say the sky is falling.  I would appeal to your basic job: to protect those rights established by ancestors that had to fight to the death just to get them.  To make mandatory one thing by deserting your basic responsibility of upholding that which would be denied by such a mandate is the most illogical and the most consequential of all.  I doubt anyone elected you (if such things as elections really exist) to be represented by you to be their Master of their bodies.

I could go on and on and on but I doubt seriously if you're capable of dealing with it. 

 

answered on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 10:46:27 AM by Joe Knee

Joe Knee Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Dr. Richard
2

As with all conclusions, check your premises. You have assumed the premise that face masks work is correct. I see that as the weakest element in your discussion and, therefore, the easiest to attack. 

answered on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 07:54:28 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Good tip; premise-checking is perhaps even more important than making a formally valid argument.

posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 07:55:07 AM
...
0
Jack writes:

That's a valid objection. Perhaps it would have been better if I had said "While face masks do not offer complete protection they do offer far more protection than face visors?"

posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 02:33:34 PM
...
-1
Dr. Richard writes:

[To Jack]

I don't think so. You are still faced with the same question I mentioned about premises. You are just changing the premises slightly. Normally, this would be the end of my answer but you seem interested in the subject.

Many papers on this subject indicate that masks are useful in the short run regarding bacteria, not viruses. Even then, surgeons, for example, are taught not to wear them for extended times due to oxygen deprivation. But a mask does not protect from a virus because it is so small it passes through the mask. 

Comparing states with strict mask requirements with states with none or loose requirements and comparing nations the same way, the results show masks do not offer more protection, and the comparisons I read, no-mask areas actually faired better than masked regions. 

My point is, I would not accept anything dogmatically, and the mask issue seems to be entirely political, not scientific. For example, I am in Panama, and everyone must wear a mask, even if outdoors in the middle of nowhere with lots of wind. Each store (the government just allowed them to open Monday) takes your temperature and has you use hand disinfectant before you can enter. Even in a mall, this applies to each store. Go shopping, and I can tell you that I have immaculate hands. 

I'm not saying do not take precautions. All I am saying is available evidence now shows masks are useless. I am an old guy, and this the 4th Pandemic I have lived through. It is the first one politicized. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 06:04:26 PM
...
0
Jack writes:

Fair enough but I was actually going off what I remember from seeing some scientists demonstrating the effectiveness of the masks; not what the government has said. In fact, I agree that there are several things that have been said by governments that have gone against scientific advice. Hence, one of the reasons for my proposals.

Now, I know it doesn't sound very good to say I was going off from what I remember about "some" scientists but that is what I was going off. From what I remember they were doing experiments via coughing and sneezing into the mask and then using tools to analyze how much if any of the aerosols escaped the mask. They also tested a variety of different face masks.

posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 06:46:30 PM
...
-1
Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jack]

This happens to us all. Fear not.  There is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory destroyed
by an ugly fact. ~~ Sherlock Holmes 

I have had many beautiful theories nailed by facts and yet I fought the facts to protect the theory.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 08:10:52 PM
...
richard smith
1

I would not call it a Fallacy. More like voicing a concern and suggesting a solution. As far as whether mask works or if some people are more vulnerable to covid require fact checking.

answered on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 08:26:04 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

This looks good to me, logically speaking. I didn't bother with fact-checking claims/assumptions (I assume you did that legwork).

answered on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 06:14:19 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
-2
Citizen Irrelevant writes:

Dr. Bennet,

As reflected in my comment on this post, I am greatly disappointed to see something like this in the Logically Fallacious threads.  This is certainly NOT about a question of logic, it's about the  'Armchair COVID Warrior's' worries and concerns about this virus.  It is simply not suited to this forum.  As ultimate moderator here, you could decide to remove this post.  Although I personally see MANY weak points and several subjective assumptions the author has put forward, I refuse to engage because this is not the place to have that discussion.  

posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 12:55:32 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Citizen Irrelevant]

I am happy to review arguments for fallacies. This is what that is. As many us pointed out, assumptions and premises have to be checked. Try to remove content with the logic. Get to the point where you can strongly disagree with the argument and objectively common on the fallacies.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 01:14:30 PM
...
-2
Citizen Irrelevant writes:

This comment seems to be kind of butchering the syntax, and I don't entirely understand what you said.  However, it is your forum, and if you think this dogmatic vaccine promotion suitable, it's your call certainly.  * FYI,  there is an alternative school of thought amongst the virologist community that people who have received vaccines are heavy shedders of the virus.  Isn't that ironic, that the vaccinated pose threats to the unvaccinated?  But I am using the term "vaccine" loosely as many virologists, and doctors, have pointed out that what is currently being used must be properly categorized as "experimental biological agent" ( Dr. Simone Gold ).   But what of that?  It would appear that THIS discussion is not as black and white (binary) as 'Jack' would seem to believe...

posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 02:04:31 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Citizen Irrelevant]

I'll rephrase. This forum is about evaluating arguments for fallacies. We do our best to avoid arguing about the content of the argument. Jack's post is right in line with the purpose of this forum.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 02:12:49 PM
...
0
Jack writes:
[To Citizen Irrelevant]

As Bo said, this site is to do with checking for fallacies in an argument. Any personal opinions about the argument or the person behind the argument are irrelevant to objectively analyzing logical fallacies.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Mar 05, 2021 02:21:00 PM