Fear is the path to the dark side.

"There is no point arguing the facts with people who’ve dug their trench in a field of falsehoods."

In the words of Carl Sagan: “Wherever we have strong emotions, we are liable to fool ourselves.” Thus it seems to me, in the blind rush not to die coughing up our guts, have we abandoned rationality?

Because it looks like the ongoing coronavirus saga has, once again, exposed our human foibles and irrational behaviour. They’ve even shut-down the Mark Six lottery! 

Meanwhile, in the process, the coronavirus is seeding a new set of conspiracy theories. Amongst my favourites is the claim that 5G caused the virus, that the beverage Red Bull is a vector, and drinking bleach is a cure. Please don’t drink bleach; it may kill you. Neither is a potion of cow urine recommended. 

This nonsense is all part of the same process that generates the ‘flat-earthers’, a belief in spoon-benders and gay frogs — check that out. At times it’s entertaining; thus, we tolerate it. Then, when this craziness feeds into anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, we must confront it. ​

To illustrate the issue, the HPV vaccine prevents five per cent of cancers worldwide. That’s a lot of cancer stopped in its tracks. In the USA, estimates suggest that the vaccine could prevent 92 % of HPV related diseases. That’s hundreds of thousands of young people spared, with massive emotional and financial benefits for the community.

Then come along a few influential opinion-leaders — either ill-informed or conspiracy nut-jobs asserting the vaccine is dangerous. Next, people hesitate to vaccinate. 

The World Health Organisation identified this ‘hesitancy’ amongst the top 10 threats to public health. Moreover, this is not taking place in backward places with uneducated populations.

​This behaviour comes from wealthy middle-class communities feeding off a few repeated falsehoods recycled through social media.

All of a sudden people feel empowered enough to argue with experts. The fact that a medical doctor spends decades studying an issue gets dismissed. When the experts fight back with facts, the other side has two options; either change their opinion or deny. And guess what happens in most instances? Yep, people deny the evidence. 

They’ll trawl the Internet searching for information to affirm their belief. Without a doubt, people tend to gravitate towards and accept claims that support their pre-existing ideas. This ‘motivated reasoning’ is well documented.

People hold an opinion and want it to be accurate; thus, when confronted with contrary evidence, they’ll gather more stuff to affirm the belief. Next, repudiate anything to the opposite. 

​Even a burnished partial truth may face extrapolation to suit a belief. This psychological process, driven by our narcissistic traits, is intoxicating at times. The mantra is ‘I know something that others don’t know’.

To no one’s surprise, research shows a correlation between religious cults and adherence to conspiracy theories. Furthermore, in the modern world, as religion retreats from prominence, some people hook into conspiracy theories as a substitute. Yet, this anchor won’t hold in the soft soil of misleading information.

Further complicating matters for those seeking to untangle these falsehoods, is the idea that a ‘web of belief’ shapes our thinking. All our beliefs come interconnected, acting in mutual support.

​If you believe China is an evil empire, then you are more likely to agree the coronavirus is man-made in a secret military lab. 

The process is especially intriguing when significant events take place. Those that hold the belief that 9/11 was an inside job, will shape everything they perceive to support that argument.

​They’ll give credence to people of the same views while questioning in a disparaging tone the reasoning of others citing opposing evidence. Often, when the facts are robust and hard to refute, they’ll then attack motives. ‘I know what I know, why are you questioning me?’ 

Likewise, people reject mundane explanations because complicated and exotic theories enjoy more traction. For instance, the disparity in official reports for the number of people injured at the Prince Edward Station on August 31, 2019, gets spun as evidence of secret trains and deaths.

People mistrusting the authorities, immediately buy into the idea of killings despite a lack of proof. Their distorted frame of reference takes them there with ease. 

Generally, it’s people with low analytical and critical thinking skills that tend to accept these wild conspiracies. Studies of this phenomena have identified a cohort educated in the ‘soft subjects’ as susceptible. The grievance studies courses are examples.

​These qualify people without attaining critical thinking skills. Also, their work gets waved through without robust peer review. Facts are irrelevant to them because opinions trump any evidence. No surprise then that anecdotal evidence points towards students from those places leading the troubles this summer. 

Pushing all this along are the silos created by social media. Allied to this is the ‘Big Lie’ theory boosted by the ability of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to repeat a falsehood.

If you hear a story repeated often enough, you start according it some weight. A fair number of people may believe it: “Well something happened” is the refrain. 

There is no point arguing the facts with people who’ve dug their trench in a field of falsehoods. For starters, they don’t want to hear the truth. And second, anyone presenting it has a suspicious motive; on a positive note, ridicule and humour blunt the impact of these types. 

Wanting to be seen as a serious-thinking person, taking the piss out of their silly ideas unsettles them. Recently, I saw this approach in action. A young man was rattling on: “The police used a secret train to convey protesters over the border”. As quick as a flash, a friend asked: “Did it leave from Platform 9¾?”

As a flood of Harry Potter references followed, the kid reddened up and then sulked away. A small victory, but a victory nonetheless. 

Once again, I’m giving unabashed advocacy for objective truths. Rumours, ill-founded opinions and misplaced emotion must face a challenge. I don’t wish to be a fact-based Gradgrind because there is a very human dimension to this outbreak; after all, every death is a tragedy.

And yet the antidote to fear and uncertainty is transparency supported by timely, accurate information from reliable sources. 

The problem with this approach is that we are living in an age of government and media distrust. In Hong Kong, trust in our officials is at an all-time low. Carrie Lam is as popular as a bowl of Bat soup.

So below are reliable information sources run by scientists or presenting objective information. 
​
Lastly, you can test yourself here. How many conspiracy theories can you identify? 

​(I’ve attached more links in this blog following a suggestion from a reader)

• John Hopkins - Mapping the Outbreak.
• How Bad Will the Outbreak Get? 
• World Health Organisation.
• ​World Heath Organisation - advice to public
• Healthy Matters - simple common sense guide to precautions.