Critical Thinking and Pandemics XII: Death Analogies

Company argument, because other limited responses to the Pandemic of Pandemic Dr dance and Covid-19 Pandemic, do not have to conclude that these measures should not be taken, because we do not have similar approaches for compared causes of death. In the next pandemic, we can expect the same reasoning that can be formalized as follows:

1. Premise: Another cause of death kills many or more people.

2. Premise: We don’t impose x measurements to deal with this cause of death.

Conclusion: We should not set x measurements to address the pandemia.

Those who often use arguments were used as analogous cause of death, but there were also sources of car accidents, suicides, heart diseases, swimming pools, etc. While specific arguments were submitted in a number of ways, all arguments from analogy were. Or at least attempts.

Informally, the plot of analogy is the conclusion that concludes, because there are two things in the same way, are also sometimes. Formally, more, arguments is as follows:

1. Premise: X and y properties p, q, r.

2. Premise: X. has the property of Z.

Conclusion: Y has owned property Z.

X and y are variables for all that compare, such as death reasons. There are also variables, Q, and variables, but there are Properties X and Y are properties or characteristics, for example, kill people. It is also a Z variable, and is a possession or characteristic that is known, such as social separation. Using P, Q and R is for the sake of illustration. Comparing, things that are comparing can have several common properties.

The analogy argument is an inductive argument. This means that they are like that, if all premises are true, even if the conclusion probably true. Like other inductive arguments, the argument is evaluated according to analogy by applying the quality of the logic quality. Like all the arguments, there is also the local or whether it is true. The strength of an analog argument depends on three factors. An analog argument is a strong argument to the extent that these standards meet these standards.

First, they have more properties X and Y in common, the better the argument. This rule is based on making two more things to be equal to other ways, the more likely they will be equal differently. It should be noted that both things are equal to equal, they may not be the owner of Z. It is a reason that analogical argument is inductive.

Second, the more important they are shared properties z property, the more powerful argument. A specific property, for P, P is owned by P’s own or not the probability that affects the status of z. It should be noted that X and Y is possible to share important properties, while Y. is not owned by Y., which is inductive arguments.

The third must be determined whether X and Yk are not important. The more and more important disagreements are the more vulnerable argument.

These can be simplified to a basic standard: the more things there are more important ways, the more powerful argument. The two things are more important in the way, weaker arguments. So the use of these standards can examine the cause of death analogy.

One thing is all the causes of death are the causes of death. That is from the swimming pools 19 Covid-19. Of course, the different causes of death will be more or less the Covid-19 or other pandemic caused by deaths and considering grinding through each argument that is maintained. In the interest of time, I will take the two main categories of the cause of death (if not all).

A category of death cause is that social drainers and other science-based pandemic pathogens and other pathogens cannot be addressed. These include suicide, traffic death and pool deaths. Of course, we do not use social dragon to deal with these causes of death because they will not work. Therefore, because we do not have to deal with the death of traffic because we do not use a distance of society, it should not be used in Covid-19 (or another pathogen) that analogy would be terrible. To use an analogy, we do not argue that airbags and pandemic seat belts, we do not need to use to reduce traffic deaths. It would be a bad reasoning.

To be fair, someone could argue what is not specific answers, but the level of answer. That is, because there is no massive and restrictive response to traffic death, we should not have a massive response to Covid-19 or the next pandemia answer. Although the response of the threat proportionately respond to rational, it is to answer this argument. Vehicles must meet security standards, which must be licensed, there are books of traffic laws, the traffic is rigorously regulated with signs, lights and road marks, and the police patrol on the roads regularly. Pools are also highly regulated in the United States. For example, fences and self-locking doors are mandatory in most places. Somewhat ironically, drawing analogy of things like traffic deaths, supports massive and restrictable means of dealing with a pandemic.

In horrible, the best way to discuss a hard response to a pandemic would be to find the cause of death on the scale of the pandemia we do as little as a nation and then left arguing in Pandemia. Poverty and health care lack are two examples. This analogy would be attractive to evil people.

The second categories of death are the reasons that may be made using the same methods used to deal with a pandemic. The ordinary flu is a great example here. The same methods that work against Covid-19 and many other pathogens also work against the flu. As much as possible in fake years, life remains normal: no social distinction, no business closure, no mandatory mask. While this analogy is appealing, it falls fast due to significant differences between Covid-19 and ordinary flu. The same would also be applied to the next dangerous pandemic.

When people started against pandemic response analogies, the best values ​​of Covid-19 had been killed 3-4% of contaminants, although it has been a great variation based on age, based on health care and underlying health conditions. In contrast, the flu has a mortality rate below 1%. It kills too many people but it was more dangerous than Covid-19. So the more reasonable it is to be more dangerous to something is the most restrictable and extensive response. We also have measures against the flu (or be): People ask for measures and the flu shots are recommended. As he is writing, people believe that the threat of Covid is similar to the seasonal flu and act accordingly. Also, if the risky tension of the flu again explains, it would make sense to pause our restrictions.

When closing, this discussion brings an account of the Ethics and Public Policy. Like those who are aware of the analogies of death, we tolerate a certain number of deaths that can be avoided. We need to be seriously directed to determine the acceptable number of deaths in the next pandemic when the answer to that trial matches. And we must not forget that we could be among those who have suffered death. Why should we also consider that we suffer so many other deaths.

Be safe and see you in the future.