Stop The Coronavirus Using This One Weird Trick!
I have the solution, and you’re going to love it. I have successfully avoided contracting the COVID-19 virus by…wait for it…drinking one shot of bourbon whiskey every day since the pandemic began. And you know what? It has been 100% effective! As I have remained perfectly healthy through all of this, it should be clear that it is thanks to to my consumption of a daily dose of corn liquor distilled in accordance with 27 CFR, Section 5.22(b)(1)(i). I suppose you could try it with other spirits, but I’m not sure the science would hold up.
A bourbon a day keeps the Kung Flu away?
What’s that you say? You say that it isn’t science, because correlation doesn’t imply causation? Well, I guess you could be right…but at least we have correlation, and why take chances? I mean, it’s not like it’s going to crash the economy if I’m wrong. You know, like shuttering small businesses, keeping people from working, and stuff like that.
I know, I know…everybody says lockdowns, masks, and social distancing are the scientific answer to stopping the spread of COVID-19…or flattening its curve, or whatever it is we’re trying to do today.
We know it’s the answer because it worked here in Kentucky! We had all these restrictions, and we’ve got a very low number of cases and deaths compared to other states. See? There’s your proof that it works! (Just shut up about our record unemployment.)
Proof? Hold on…New York did it, and they got slammed. But on the other hand, it worked in California…supposedly because they started doing that stuff two days before New York did. Two days is what made the difference in New York? And let’s just leave Michigan out of it. They’ve been locked down harder than an Instant Pot lid, and they’re not going anywhere soon…and their numbers still don’t look so hot. Georgia removed their restrictions a couple of weeks ago, and they’re doing fine.
Gosh…it sure is hard to even correlate lockdowns and such to success in combating the virus, much less prove that it was the cause of the success. It’s really hard, this “correlation does not imply causation” business, and it’s even harder when you try to use correlation alone to prove a negative.
Just because two things happen at the same time, it doesn’t mean one caused the other.
You know about proving a negative, right? Some people believe it can’t be done at all, but even those who believe that it can be done will admit that it’s really difficult, and that correlation alone doesn’t cut it.
I can tell you from over 30 years in the military/police/security business that it is in fact pretty tough to prove that something didn’t happen because of an action you took. An example from the military perspective might be: “We have a strong military, therefore we have not been invaded by a foreign army in decades.” Both statements are true…we do have a strong military, and we haven’t been attacked in a while. And while it might make sense that a strong military prevents attack, you can’t really prove it. To do that scientifically, you would also need to have a control…a United States without a strong military, and then see if it gets attacked. After all, there a countries which have strong armies which get invaded all the time (Poland), and then you have countries with no military at all that get pretty much left alone (Costa Rica).
Might be that military strength isn’t the only variable at play.
Kind of a tough experiment to pull off. However, we can get a little closer by comparing police forces and crime rates and see how that shakes out. It would stand to reason that areas with lots of police would have lower crime rates than places without a lot of police protection, right? Even if that were true (and it’s not…compare crime rates between heavily-policed and crime-ridden Chicago to lightly policed and relatively low-crime rural Wyoming), it would be impossible to prove that crime is or is not happening because of strong policing…you can’t even show correlation.
Since I’m here and there’s no crime, there must be no crime because I’m here!
The good thing is that…within reason…you can maintain a strong military and an effective police force without ruining your economy, your society, and your Constitution. This has not been the case with our response to the coronavirus; in the name of combating a bug which has been over 99% survivable we have ruined businesses and sent millions to the unemployment office. All without any proof that these measures have even been effective, and considerable discussion around the possibility that it has even been counterproductive in controlling the virus itself (by postponing herd immunity).
As I have discussed here previously, there are really two components to the process of risk mitigation: effectiveness and cost. Over the last several weeks, we have all become acutely aware of the cost of mitigating the COVID-19 risk, and it has been immense. But where is the proof that the mitigation has actually been effective enough to justify it? After all, if the only evidence we’re going to require is that two events coincide, you might do just as well to embrace my 100% effective home remedy and drink up!
