Coronavirus: Separating logic, data and self-evident truths

The world is awash in all sorts of opinion and all sorts of data about the China virus. These pertain to its extent, its fallout and what needs to be done today, tomorrow, the day after, the week after that and so on.

I am not in any position to contest or approve of any of these. But after three weeks of being carpet bombed, it does seem that it is necessary, for journalists at the very least, to distinguish between logic, data and self-evident truths.

If you do this, things will not appear so bewildering. The bewilderment is because logic and data are mixed up with self-evident truths. Selection bias comes into play which means you say or believe one thing today and the opposite tomorrow. 

Logic, not to make too big a fuss about it, is nothing more than the internal consistency of arguments. For example, you can’t or shouldn’t, say governments that are led by politicians are wilfully negligent when you also know that such negligence can cost them the next election. The sad truth is that what is labelled as negligence can be due to incompetence and/or the unexpected. The recent episode at Bandra station where a few thousand migrant workers congregated hoping to catch a train home was the perfect combination of the two. 

It’s being said that the poor must be given free food. But this is true even without a devastating virus. It doesn’t need to be said just to appear compassionate.

Data is, well, data. Manipulating it is a fine art and it’s takes a good manipulator to spot the manipulation. Indeed, I have always held that for every piece of data, there also exists an equal and opposite piece of data. It’s the old half-full vs half-empty problem. For example, you can say, as some western leaders have said that 70 percent of the population is likely to be infected; or you can say only 1 per cent of them are likely to die. The first is alarmist and the second perhaps not so much. 

And then there are self-evident truths. One such is that India is under-testing and therefore underestimating the number of people who have been infected with coronavirus. But there’s no point whatsoever in saying this. It’s a self-evident truth. 

Likewise, it’s being said that the poor must be given free food. But this is true even without a devastating virus. It doesn’t need to be said just to appear compassionate. 

Similarly, there’s the suggestion by several economists that the states must be given money. This, too, is self-evident because unlike the Centre, they can’t print notes to fund their needs. 

What is not self-evident, however, is the requirement — under the law in the RBI Act — that if they get an overdraft from it they must return it in three months. How is this possible? What the economists need to suggest must pertain to this. Another self-evident truth that’s stated repeatedly is that “the world has changed forever.” Yes. That happens after world wars and pandemics. 

I can go on giving examples of this sort of thing but the point must be clear by now, which is that if you don’t know the details, it’s best to keep quiet until you find out. 

Twitter: @tca_tca