Alec Hogg’s Inbox: Balance comes from looking at both sides of an argument
Arnaud Malherbe's caustic email that follows requires a disclaimer. First, to repeat that we respect the views of all BizNews community members, even though we may not agree. Balance comes from looking at both sides of an argument and applying our own intellect to make up our minds. Second, I'd caution Arnaud and others to temper their attacks on other correspondents. For instance, he questions direct personal experiences shared by Robert Bloomberg, whom I know as a leading member of the Cape Town legal fraternity – thus a man trained in dealing in facts. In our craft of professional observation, journalists assign greater weighting to the words of those who have actually experienced an event – which is why the best reporter is the one out on the beat rather than behind a keyboard. That tends to quickly develop much needed scepticism of agenda-driven narratives.
Here's Arnaud's contribution:
"Thank you for posting Jean le Riche's email, which echo my views. In fact, I was wondering if you should change your name to "Covidnews", since there seems to be very little "Biz" in your articles these days?
Anyway, back to the emails. I find it fascinating that even intelligent people lend so much credence to their personal experiences, rather than the national or global facts we are presented with (of course, if you do not believe the national or global data, then that is a WHOLE other story. I will admit they may not be 100% accurate, but you should be able to ascertain a trend, or at least get some indication).
So, you know a family of 9 who have developed Covid after getting a vaccine? Does this prove they got it from the vaccine? Causality has clearly not been established. And, even if they did (which is unlikely, given what the vaccines contain), a sample size of 9 is hardly significant. Any statistician will tell you that. And why would any rational person suppose that their personal experience has more significance than the fact that over 3 billion people have been vaccinated, with very little known side effects? Yet we seem to be like that – if we personally have experienced something or know someone who has, we lend it more credence than the statistics involving millions and/or billions of people that may prove the opposite. But, for an organisation who claims that their North Star is rationality, maybe it should be different?
Maybe rationality dictates that we actually be rational and realise that just because we know someone who has had a different experience, it does not prove the rule? Or prove that the rule is false? More likely that our personal experience is an exception to the rule and we should rather look at the data provided, which seem to prove that vaccines do work and don't cause significant side effects or Covid itself? I also can't believe that the author of that email does not know many more people who have been vaccinated with no side effects, as I am sure most of us do by now. More people have been vaccinated than have contracted Covid (know cases) after all.
As for Ivermectin, I personally have not formed an opinion on it either way. But again, saying you know people who have taken it and have not developed Covid may be coincidence. Once again, causality has not been established. You also need to look at how these people behaved. Have they been masking, social distancing etc? Maybe that is what have prevented them getting Covid, rather than the Ivermectin? Rather look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature which says it doesn't work against Covid as SARS-Cov-2 is a virus and Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic. Or, look at the scientific literature that says it can have "off-label" use against Covid and is actually effective. Like I said, I still see too many conflicting views on this subject to make an informed opinion. What I do know is that, even if Ivermectin does work, it is not a silver bullet, but should be seen as one tool in the arsenal against Covid, along with hand-washing, mask-wearing, sanitising, isolating and perhaps most importantly, vaccines.
What I am trying to say is that, for rationality to prevail, one should look at the body of evidence and evaluate it rationally and not lend more weight to personal experience. In this I agree with John Harker. Yet, I am fully aware that it is human nature to do exactly that. And, when faced with an emotive issue like Covid, our emotions tend to override any logic we may have. But, if your North Star is to be rationality, I would suggest that Biznews not fall into that same trap. Because, as Jean le Riche states in his opening sentence, it certainly does seem that Biznews is biased in one direction over another, and this direction seems to be guided not by the multitude of literature and statistics available, but rather by the personal experiences of some readers.
And, just before I am branded as someone who has not experienced Covid personally, I have lost a father-in-law, a cousin, and a few friends to this disease. One of my friends, who is 28 years old, fit and healthy, even suffered a Covid-induced stroke and now has to learn how to walk and talk all over again. But again, my sample size of one does not suddenly mean that Covid-induced stroke is now a hallmark of this disease, if logic and rationality is to prevail."
As a counter, here's a note from George Kokolas, whom I met while he was in London, working as one of the City's most respected investment analysts:
"My blood was boiling today as I read your piece justifying your position on keeping Biznews as an open forum of discussion. With ALL aspects and points of view open to discussion.
I am SO ready to take this Jean le Riche down a peg or two. How dare he even think of trying to stop your members and followers from having ALL the facts available to them.
Keep on doing what you do. It is always honest and honourable."
To receive BizNews founder Alec Hogg's Daily Insider every weekday at 6am in your inbox click here. You can also sign up to the weekend's BizNews Digest for a wrap of the best content BizNews has to offer, for a leisurely Saturday read.