All Stories

The Numerous Logic fails in Boris Johnson’s Coronavirus policy

Tom Winnifrith
Thursday 1 October 2020

One would have thought that with all those Oxford PPE graduates in Government, someone would have done a paper on logic and spotted that nothing makes sense.  But it seems not. Dear cabinet members, you are transported in time and are back in Schools and once again sitting Prelims and here is question one on the logic paper.

You state that it is fact, without any data to prove it from a double blind experiment, that wearing masks, social distancing, closing pubs at 10 PM (or, in Liverpool, completely if they serve any booze without an accompanying meal), working from home, etc. stop the spread of coronavirus. Please demonstrate how your claim is therefore a fact, i.e. something that has happened.

If case numbers rise after such a policy is implemented, is the logical implication based on the “proven fact” that you should:

a) tighten such measures as they would have worked but only if there were even more restrictions
b) relax such measures as they were not having any proven positive effect but were having clear and negative side effects.

If, however, case numbers start to fall, do you:

a) Claim that your measures worked, although there is no double blind trial to prove this, and thus continue or increase them to accelerate the fall in case numbers
b) Relax them as you have done what you set out to do.

Please answer all three parts of this question with reference to the desirability of sawing off a man’s leg to deal with a minor case of chickenpox.



If you enjoyed reading this article from Tom Winnifrith, why not help us cover our running costs with a donation?
About Tom Winnifrith
Tom Winnifrith is the editor of When he is not harvesting olives in Greece, he is (planning to) raise goats in Wales.
[email protected]
Recently Featured on ShareProphets
Sign up for my weekly newsletter

Required Reading

Recent Comments

I also read