Debating, one hand tied behind your back

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/06/2023 (1143 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Though life has mostly returned to its pre-pandemic form, those who reject the COVID-19 vaccine are nevertheless determined to do battle.

The debate between pro- and anti-vaccine voices returned to the fore this month when Dr. Peter Hotez, known for developing patent-free vaccines for less affluent countries, rebuked podcaster Joe Rogan for an interview he conducted with aspiring U.S. president Robert Kennedy Jr., in which Kennedy spread false information about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Rogan’s show, The Joe Rogan Experience, is one of the most popular podcasts going — a 2022 estimate showed about 11 million listeners per episode. Further, Rogan’s willingness to entertain any and all arguments has made the program a safe haven for pundits, fringe political actors and pseudo-scientists who are otherwise without a large-scale platform.

So when a doctor attacked the show for hosting anti-vaccine guests, anti-vaccine listeners reacted strongly, to put it lightly. Hotez claims that since his statement, his life has been threatened and he has even been stalked in person.

Rogan responded to Hotez’s criticism by inviting him to debate Kennedy on the subject, even putting up US$100,000 for a charity of Hotez’s choice. Supporters of Rogan, Kennedy, and even those harassing Hotez have latched on to the offer: if Hotez is so convinced he’s in the right, why not debate?

But there’s a good reason Hotez isn’t taking the bait: it can only be a waste of time.

Most people like to believe in, or at least pay lip service to, the idea that facts win out in the end. Therefore, a controversial issue will inevitably resolve into a consensus opinion so long as the evidence is there to support it.

This is, however, often proven false. The phenomenon of confirmation bias, for one, leads many to seek out information which upholds their own biases, while rejecting contrary data.

Then there’s sunk-cost fallacy, in which people continue to invest energy, money or other resources into a losing prospect because continued investment feels less costly than surrender.

While some vaccine-hesitant people have come around to support and get the jab, those who remain are entrenched in their position: a Pew Research report in May this year showed 32 per cent of Americans surveyed believe strongly that public health officials “are not telling us everything they know about COVID-19 vaccines”; 33 per cent said they believe the risk of side effects is “high” (While many experienced side effects typical of vaccines, such as some muscle pain or headaches, serious side effects remain rare).

Health officials have released substantial data to support the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and we might take the continued good health of the 5-billion-plus who have received at least one dose (according too the World Health Organization) as a sign they are safe.

If anyone is still arguing against the vaccine, their opposition appears to have little to do with data and evidence.

Therefore Hotez, in a debate, could only rely on data and evidence his opponents have already chosen to reject.

Further, there is nothing for Rogan and Kennedy to contribute to such a debate. Rogan has been many things — a game show host, a stand-up comic, a mixed martial arts commentator, and now a podcaster — but he has never been an MD, nor has Kennedy.

The debate cannot exist on even terms, and being bound by data but faced with opponents with no such constraints, ties a hand behind Hotez’s back in front of a hostile audience.

The taunting invitation to “debate” is in the end a setup: Hotez can only fail.

He’s been invited to play chess against pigeons. The game is going to go as one would expect, and to boot, the crowd will be on the pigeons’ side.