Second, we need to consider what will be the consequences of disproportionate preventive
measures.
We already demonstrated that the health care system overload, to a large extent, was caused
by the preventive actions and not by the unusual virulence of the disease.
Other consequences of the lockdown are already noticeable:
• home violence, women stranded at homes with oppressors
• mental health issues
• no access to health care services for people affected by other diseases
• lack of children’s education and resulting video game addictions
• unemployment being also a great threat to public health
• bankruptcies and recession
• increased suicides
• political instability and social unrest
• disruption of normal life on every level
Severe restrictions like prohibiting travel, locking universities, introducing the curfew were
normally associated with extreme dictatorship and would be unacceptable unless labeled as coun-
termeasures to the one thing that is in the spotlight.
The resulting actions are radical and reckless. It’s hard to find logic or any long-term thinking
in the lockdown. We cannot stop the nature from evolving. The viruses mutate all the time and
the new ones of similar virulence may appear every month. Is the world going to be put to a halt
forever then?
The reaction of the authorities recalls the picture of a child who found itself in the middle of
the thunderstorm and being afraid of getting wet hides under a tree and ignores the more deadly
risk of being struck by lightning.
Focalism fueled by fear is so harmful because it makes people hold unbalanced views, distorts
judgment and leads to radical actions. Because a single danger is in our focus we ignore the harmful
effects of an overreaction when evading it.
Specific claim
People who are HIV positive are of greater risk of complications and dying of coronavirus.
We are not going to prove or disprove this claim. To demonstrate the fallacy, it’s enough to
change the order in the claim:
People who are coronavirus positive are of greater risk of complications and dying of HIV.
This is an example of anchoring and it is important to understand how it affects the classifica-
tion of fatal cases and statistics. Because the anchor ”the new deadly disease” is initially set, the
further judgment occurs in relation to this anchor, including the way we determine cause of death.
2.11
Single cause fallacy
Single cause fallacy also known as oversimplification is the assumption that there is a single, simple
cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of multiple causes. One
factor stays in focus, while other possibly contributing causes go undetected, are ignored or are
15