I want to coin a new term: “Arationalist”.
I admit that my life experiences and job training have taught me to look at data, analyze it and either confirm, modify or change my conclusions and my prospective viewpoints. This “scientific” model of thesis/antithesis/synthesis can be off-putting to people otherwise trained. It is not flip-flopping, but iterative reasoning.
I have often referred back to the quote from Mark Twain (Life on the Mississippi):
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
With all of my prejudices well laid out on the table, I need to react to the continued, parallel and redundant errors in our country’s response to this virus. The errors are not restricted to the central administration, it is echoed in state capitols, in local governments and in the actions of individual citizens.
ARATIONALISM:
First person: “Every time I wear my lucky shirt, I hit more green traffic lights”
Second person: “Maybe you just notice green lights more when you wear the shirt that you think is lucky”
First person: “No, I definitely hit more green lights. I wore it to the Super Bowl and hit every green light on the way out.”
Second person: “Maybe they were configured that way to get better traffic flow.”
First person: “How would you know? You don’t even drive.”
Arationalism is not the belief in contradictory reasons to believe something. That is irrationalism. Irrational people use unsupported reasoning to defend their positions. Examples include attaching motivation to external, undetectable forces, attribution to effects based on belief in extrarational forces such as crystals, cosmic forces, alien interventions, etc.
By arationalism I intend to refer to the simple disregard of facts or data. This is the ability to compartmentalize data and facts in a lockbox so that it cannot impact upon your pre-chosen position. In this mode of thinking, hope and wish are unimpeded by scientific research or advice.
This arational approach to the COVID-19 appeared in January of this year; reappeared in June and is now projecting to September. Here is the evidence:
January 2020.
Knowing that the virus was spreading in this country, that there was, at least suggestive evidence that there was community spread, high transmissibility rates and high lethality rates, this country chose a strategy of IGONORING that information, TRANSFERRING the responsibility to “others” (China, WHO, Democrats, etc.), ASSUMING that external forces would simply stop the spread, and ARGUING that economic, people and fiscal costs would be too high to do something when there was not reason to believe that any of those efforts would actually be needed.
Ignore
Transfer
Assume
Argue
ARATIONALITY
The results from this strategy? A rapid expansion of infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Responses that should have been implemented in February were not until mid-March. It is far easier to put out the fire on the top of the stove than to ignore it and then have to fight the fire in the whole kitchen.
DID WE LEARN?
June 2020
Having implemented strategies that were beginning to reduce the case rates and subsequent affects, the CDC developed policies that would allow communities to “open up” their economies while keeping strong controls on viral spread.
New York, as an example took these policies seriously, adhered to them, community by community and have successfully muted the virus spread.
Some states chose to take those policies as “suggestions”. They IGNORED their own data, pretended that they could find something in their data that met something in the “suggestions”; they not only moved everyone into the first phase, but without monitoring for meeting any of the policy goals, they moved quickly through all of the opening up phases.
Additionally, they TRANSFERRED blame to BLM protesters, outside agitators or increased testing. They ASSUMED that everything would work out fine because their leaders were telling them that. And then ARGUED that the economic pains associated with keeping bars closed would be greater than the pains of increased infections, that it was just the “sniffles”, most people survive easily, and hospitals were well prepared for any new outbreaks.
Ignore
Transfer
Assume
Argue
ARATIONALITY
The results from this strategy? A rapid increase in infections, hospitalizations and deaths in those states that opened up quickly, and proportionately increased problems in those states that opened up most aggressively.
DID WE LEARN?
September 2020
Now we are faced with the issue of returning to school.
I fear that we are again making the exact same errors with respect to students.
First point here: It is critical for everyone to remember as they listen to the spokespeople for both sides, that the term “children” when referring to schools is a term that encompasses a very wide range of individual cohorts. Children under the age of 10, up until the end of 4th grade, are less likely to suffer severe disease and to transfer sufficient viral loads to infect others. This does not mean that they are safe. There are many young children of those ages, and all the way down through infancy who have died from COVID-19 infections. However, the lethality is significantly lower than for adults. This also does not mean that they WILL NOT become infected, and it does not mean that they WILL NOT transfer infections. It means ONLY that the odds are significantly lower.
Also, there is nothing mystical about your 10th birthday, this is simply a statistical breakpoint. For specific individuals, some in the 2nd or 3rd grade will shed large amounts of virus, while some in the 7th or 8th grade will not.
However, from the 5th grade on, the likelihood of exchanging infections among these individuals is probably equal to the likelihood of exchanging infections among adults, and the viral load transferred from an infected school age child will be equal to that of an adult.
How is the country responding? We are IGNORING the facts that, although increased attendance at schools may not result in increasing deaths of school children (btw, there absolutely will be an increase, but it will be small), the increased spread of infections will result in the increased hospitalization of teachers, janitorial staff, school security guards, bus drivers and administrators as well as their spouses and children.
We are TRANSFERRING the responsibility for this to various political voices, unions and advocacy groups who are trying to look out for everyone’s safety.
We are ASSUMING that if we do this, everything will work out just fine, that the schools will find the extra classroom space, the extra staff and the needed supplies as well the money for that; we are ASSUMING that the teachers, staff and employees will take it upon themselves to risk their lives for the patriotic duty of educating our children.
We are ARGUING that keeping children home will cause more problems than sending them to schools; problems such as childcare, isolation, depression and suicide. We are arguing that remote learning does not work, attendance cannot be assured, internet cannot be provided, etc.
Ignore
Transfer
Assume
Argue
ARATIONALITY
The results from this strategy? We will see, within weeks of the opening of schools, reports of outbreaks in school districts. Multiple children in classes will test positive. A couple of weeks later we will see new spikes in the hospitalizations of teachers, staff, their spouses and parents who were exposed from the kids.
This will be complicated by the seasonal spread of influenza. The circulation of influenza may amplify the susceptibility to severe outcomes from COVID-19 as well as increased hospitalizations from both.
We will hear from teacher unions, janitorial unions, bus driver unions, etc., that they cannot in good conscience expose their members to potentially fatal diseases.
How will we respond? We don’t have any plans in place to deal with this so my guess is that we are currently IGNORING the potential problems; we are TRANSFERRING the blame for any potential problems onto the schools and localities; we are ASSUMING that the problems will not arise; and we are ARGUING that the dangers associated with keeping kids home were greater than the deaths associated with the reopening.
Will we reopen schools, but close bars? Will we force teachers to work but allow basketball players to opt out of the season? Will we shut down school athletics but open fitness centers?
Arationality is not a plan, it is blind hope.