Protogoras Paradox

Anonymous Author

Today many countries have an interesting paradox. Do we continue lockdown for a very long time and wipe out our economies or let a few 100 million die and keep the economies going.

The Protogoras Paradox succinctly captures the paradox of our times!

Protagoras Paradox

Over 2000 years ago, in Greece, there was a lawyer named Protagoras. A young student, Euthalos,  requested to apprentice under him, but was unable to pay the fees. The student struck a deal saying, “I will pay your fee the day I win my first case in the court”. Teacher agreed. When the training was complete and a few years had elapsed without the student paying up, the teacher decided to sue the student in the court of law. 

The teacher thought to himself: ‘If I win the case, as per the law, the student will have to pay me, as the case is about non-payment of dues. And if lose the case, the student will still have to pay me, because he would have won his first case. Either way I will get paid’.

The student’s view was, ‘If I win the case, I won’t have to pay the teacher, as the case is about my non-payment of fees. And if I lose the case, I don’t have to pay him since I wouldn’t have won my first case yet. Either way I will not pay the teacher.’

This is known as Protagoras Paradox, which ever way you look both have equally convincing arguments, one can go either way in supporting the teacher or the student and would not be wrong.

Those in medical practice often come across such situations, either in making a diagnostic or therapeutic decision. One physician can recommend a course of treatment based on scientific evidence and another can recommend a diametrically opposite course again based on medical evidence. Right or wrong, but some merit would exist on both sides. Often the physician himself is having an internal struggle to make a decision about the most appropriate course of action, Protagoras & Euthalos are arguing in his mind, to do this or to do that. The horns of dilemma are tearing him apart.

But what prompted this essay was a tweet by Donald Trump, ‘hope the cure is not worse than the disease’. I hate to say, but I find some merit in this tweet. In our global attempt to flatten the COVID curve, one hopes that we do not flatten the global economy curve. The question is what’s the best way forward. One group recommends ‘total lockdown’ to break the transmission chain, based on evidence from China, they managed to control the spread of the virus by ruthless lock down and 3 months later they are showing that disease is controlled in Wuhan. On the other hand, the other school of thought is graded isolation & protection of elderly and very young and those with co-morbidities, let it spread amongst the young and healthy, after all the disease ultimately will be controlled when we achieve ‘herd immunity’. The medical community is divided in these two groups. To enforce complete lockdown or Graded isolation?

To complicate the issue the epidemiologists have joined the bandwagon with cacophony of statistical analysis. From Rosy to Dooms day predictions. If we don’t do a complete lockdown then a million people will die in 1 year. No say some more like 90 million will die in 1 year. Whose data analysis is correct.  Some suggest do nothing, nature will take over in a few months and all will be well, they quote historical data to justify their recommendations.  On whose inputs should we base our disaster management strategy.

Then come the economists with their doomsday predictions. If this continues till May our medical resources will be overwhelmed, Agriculture will suffer, food shortages will occur, production will come to a standstill. There will be an economic crisis of the proportions that world has not seen ever. So, break this lockdown nonsense and let’s get back to work as usual.

What will our political masters do. My guess is they will listen to medical experts, epidemiologists & economists. Then they will decide what course of action will ensure their survival, what will get them people’s votes and they will run with that. At present ‘Lockdown” finds favour with them. Boris in UK had to abandon the recommendations of the medical community about graded response, because the people’s perception became that our Government is not doing enough to protect us citizens. That means revolt against him. So,screw it, lets go with total lockdown if that’s what the people want. Gradually people will get tired of lockdown and demand- let life go on. Then with equally convincing arguments the governments will say the time has now come to lift the blockade, we have controlled the contagion, we have won. Unfortunately, the costs in either case will be huge, both lives and money! 

Incidentally the Protagoras Paradox has not been resolved till date. Students in Law school still hold mock trial and give arguments on both sides without any resolution of the dispute. 

Really a perplexing situation.

Survey on Life After COVID-19 Crisis

An online survey on life after COVID-19 was conducted by me recently. The survey form was circulated through various WhatsApp groups which comprised a vast diversity of participants across different age groups, which included students, doctors, engineers, teachers, homemakers, public servants, private professionals, lawyers, media persons, retired persons, businessmen, NRIs and many more.

Responses of 738  people in total have been analysed. 

Questioned asked in the survey can be accessed at Effects of COVID-19 

Analysis of the survey :

1. Socializing Habbits-

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that their socializing habits will change after the crisis. 
• In age groups 30-45 and  > 60 this change is more prominent.
• This change may be attributed to the the fact that this virus spreads rapidly due to close proximity in physical terms among humans.

2. Eating Habits -

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that their eating habits will change after the crisis. 
• This change may be attributed to the the fact that during lockdown  people inculcated the habit of eating home-made food.
• In age groups 30-45 and  < 20  this change is more prominent.
• The reason could be that in these two age groups eating outside food is more popular due to choice or need (as they study or work away from home and families).

3. Cooking Habits-

• Across <20, 20-30 and 30-45 age groups, majority of respondents think that their cooking habits will change after the crisis. 
• This change may be attributed to the the fact that during lockdown people who lived away from home (family)  inculcated the habit of cooking. Also children and male members of the family have learned cooking during the lockdown.
• In age groups 45-60  and  > 60  majority responded that their cooking habits would not change.

4. Daily Commuting Habits-

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that their daily commuting habits will change after the crisis. 
• In age groups 30-45 and  > 60 this change is more prominent.
• This change may be attributed to the the fact that this virus spreads rapidly due to close proximity in physical terms among humans hence it might be possible people would prefer own transport in place of public transport.
• Govt would need to change the form of public transport so as to encourage use of public transport else it would lead to increase in vehicular traffic on roads which are already overcrowded and would in turn would lead to increase in air and noise pollution.

5. Holidaying Activities-

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that their holidaying activities will change after the crisis. 
• In age groups 30-45 and  45- 60 this change is more prominent.
• This change may be attributed to the the fact that there have been hotspots of this virus in various tourists destinations both within and outside the country. The fear of spread of infection from these hotspots might have led to the change in their future choice.

6. Shopping Habits-

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that their shopping habits will change after the crisis. 
• In age groups < 20 ,30-45 and  45- 60 this change is more prominent.
• This change may be attributed to the the fact that this virus spreads rapidly due to close proximity in physical terms among humans so people might prefer online mode of shopping.
• Offline shopping stores need to reorient their space taking into the norms of physical distancing into consideration.

7. Anxiety issues-

• Across  the age groups < 20, 20-30 and >60 majority of respondents did not experience anxiety during this crisis. 
• In age groups 30-45 and  45-60  majority of respondents did experience some anxiety during this crisis.
• This change may be attributed to the the fact that age group 30-45 and 45-60 have more responsibilities and thus think more of future while the age group < 20 has lesser responsibilities and age group > 60 have already completed most of their responsibilities.
• Almost same percentage of respondents are not sure about anxiety experienced by them across all age groups.

8. Environmental impact-

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that such crisis has a positive impact on environment. 
• Due to lockdown all vehicular and industrial pollution was minimal which led to significant reduction in air pollution and thus visibility was increased and people saw clear sky after many years.
• Age group < 20 responded most strongly on this point indicating that environment is quite high in their priority list which is a good sign for the country.

9. Health Care Policy-

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents very strongly think that governments would change their health care policies. 
• Present health care policies do not cater to such crisis and would surely need a major change for tackling such issues more effectively in future.

10. Impact on Individuals -

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that this crisis would bring a positive change in them. 
• In age groups 30-45 , 45-60 and  > 60 this change is more prominent.
• It shows that most of the respondents have taken this crisis in a constructive way.

11. Harm to Mankind-

• Across all the age groups majority of respondents think that this crisis has brought more harm to mankind in general. 
• In age groups  < 20 and  20-30 percentage of people who are not sure is more than other age groups.
• Looking into the extensive media coverage of this crisis and daily updation of figures related to death and rise in infection may be the attributed cause of this thought process of overall harm to mankind. On the contrary, majority of respondents in previous question responded that this crisis has brought a positive impact on environment and the individual human beings.

Summary of Analysis-

• Change in manner of living  of people attributed to fear of this crisis and life style modifications due to lockdown.
• People took this crisis in a positive way.
• People got more concerned about environmental issues.
• More stress on healthcare.

Limitations of this Survey-

• More parameters could have been captured like gender, public / private occupation, educational background, etc.
• Scored responses could have been asked for instead of Yes/No/Maybe.
• It is a generalized survey. No Statistical or Psychological tools have been used.
• It has been generally observed that people are not interested in responding to online surveys if the form uploaded is lengthy. Keeping this in mind, the survey form was kept shortest possible so that more people respond to it. 
• More elaborate surveys can be conducted on each sub sections.

Alternate viewpoint on COVID-19

COVID -19 also known as Corona Virus is the only issue discussed, debated and perceived  these days. Various strategies to fight Corona includes-

-Social distancing

-Quarantine

-Stay at home

- Lockdown

Out of these last option i.e. Lockdown has a huge economic cost.

It has been found that COVID- 19 is a very dangerous virus in terms of being infectious i.e. its transmission rate in humans is very high in comparison to other variety of virus which makes its more dangerous in comparison to other viruses .
 All the above strategies to fight this virus serves only one purpose i.e. Buying Time. At present this time is being used to augment medical facilities / infrastructure in the country in terms of Ventilators, Dedicated beds for patients of Corona , Masks and PPE kits for medical personnel, medicines like Hydroxychloroquine  etc and in few countries carrying out research for vaccine or medicine for this  this virus. At present we don’t have any scientific cure or vaccine against this virus. By these strategies per say this virus can’t be eradicated. Looking into its characteristics whole population is bound to get infected by this virus.

Even if we are able to make a vaccine for it, predictions are that it would not be available for mass consumption before first quarter of next year. Since it is a highly contagious virus it would be necessary to inoculate all  across the world  i.e. 7 bn people looking into the amount of globalisation in every aspect of our life. There would be many issues for inoculation of whole world population -

1.     Cost- Vaccine cost of swine flu is around Rs. 800 – Rs 1200 in retail market. So for 7 bn people this cost would be around Rs. 5600 bn to Rs. 8400 bn. A huge cost. Who would finance it?

2.     Logistics- In how much time such quantity of vaccine would be made available and transported to every part of world.

3.  Mutations in virus strain- Till date 125 types of virus strains have been identified of Covid-19. Would this mutation time less than or more than the time to produce , transport and inoculate whole population ? Since multiple virus strains have been identified and it’s  been mutating so we can never be sure that the vaccine discovered will be effective against all the strains. Hence it might be long before there is a universal vaccine for its cure.

4.     Opportunity cost of lockdown would also needs to be taken into consideration.

During this lockdown citizens should know what medical facilities have been generated on daily basis and also the cost of lockdown each day. If we talk of India we are not sure how many people died due to COVID -19 because of unavailability of a ventilator. Recently an Inspector of Indore police died due to COVID- 19 in spite of the fact that 85% of his infection was cured, he tested negative twice and was about to be discharged. So what is the point of such augmentation of medical infrastructure when it is unable to cure this infection at this high cost of lockdown. Due to Lockdown we are loosing economic wealth very rapidly which is required heavily to fight against this virus. Also once the supply chain gets disrupted it takes lot of time in getting restored as most activities are interdependent and we fall into a catch 22 situation.  As final product of an industry might be raw material for one industry and intermediate product for another.

Alternative approach can be-

•        Follow the norms of physical distancing
•        Hygiene like washing of hands , use of mask in public place etc.
•        Opening of lockdown.
•     Sealing of Hotspots
•        Containment of only elderly and people with some form of previous medical issues.

Risk associated with this approach would be rapid transmission of virus in the population which would lead to increase in deaths of vulnerable (people with pre -existing diseases or very weak immunity, aged people etc.). But it would also develop Herd Immunity in the population and majority of people would gain immunity in a natural way without any vaccination and would also not be further carrier of this virus. 
Dilemma wrt to deaths of people will always remain- It is the economics which usually decide up to when a patient can be kept on a ventilator or can be shifted to a higher more specialized medical centre. Most of the poor people die because of unaffordability of a treatment. Moreover death rate of Covid -19 is far less than other common disease like malaria, tuberculosis , AIDS , Cancer etc. Govts. these days seems to be very much concerned about health of its citizens these days. Use of tobacco , consumption of liquor etc. is harmful for health but still these products are not banned by the Govts. world-wide. It is economics which decides such issues. So why special treatment in case of COVID-19?

We do not know what would be the new virus in near future, its form and characteristics. With lockdown we lose economic edge required to fight this virus , the fight which is highly resource intensive. So the alternative approach can be opening up of the economy and aggressively research on prevention and cures of COVID-19. In the meantime things can be taken care by the concept of Herd Immunity.

Effective Presentation Tips

1.       Grab attention within first 30 seconds.

2.       Begin with a story .Don’t bore your audiences with introductory remarks..

3.       Stories are powerful because people are hardwired to listen stories.

4.       Take audiences to a mental journey.

5.       Share a personal story.

6.       Conflict makes a story irresistible .

7.        Stronger the conflict , more captivating the story will be.

8.       The conflict in the story is what keeps your audience curious.

9.       Its important to bring characters alive by providing details about the way they look.

10.   Sensory information allows audience to create a mental image of characters.

11.   Always follow the principle of “ Showing “ instead of “ Telling”.

12.   Include as many senses as possible-

Visual- what can you see ?

Auditory – what can you hear ?

Kinesthetic – what can you feel, either physically or emotionally ?

Olfactory – What canyou smell ?

Gustatory – What can you taste ?

13.   Specific details help audiences to see what you’re saying.

14.   Specificity adds internal credibility to the presentation.

15.   Positive message stories are inspiring.

16.   Leave audience on an emotional high.

17.   Use Dialogue and not Narration.

18.   Story must contain the spark that allowed the character to overcome the conflict.

19.   Show the change in the character.

20.   Leave audience with key takeaway message.

21.   Make takeaway message short so that audience can remember and repeat it.

Fatal Road Accidents

In India about two lakh people die in road accidents every year. Major causes of road accidents are over speeding, faulty road engineering, drunken driving, over loading, driving in wrong direction etc.  But whatever may be the cause of accident fatality in an accident is due to high speed. It is only the high speed due to which an accident becomes fatal.

We have laws in our country which governs speed limit for different types of vehicles as per type of road on which the vehicle is plying. Like in a city speed limit for two wheelers is usually 40kph and for four wheelers it is 60 kph. On highways this limit increases, like for cars etc. it goes up to 90 kph.

The enforcement of prescribed speed limit lies with police department. We can find traffic police within city limits with radar guns checking speed of various vehicles plying on the road. Over speeding drivers are often challaned. But we rarely see such checking on highways. Most of the fatal accidents occur at highways. Due to improved road conditions on majority of highways and technological advancements in automobile engineering the speed of vehicles is phenomenal these days which in turn has increased the risks of fatal accidents manifold.

So what’s the way out? Increasing more policemen on highways exclusively for this task checking day and night? Well ideally we should do it but looking at the size of our country and the enormous length of highways it is not a very practical or a feasible solution. My point is when maximum prescribed speed limit for a vehicle as per law is 90kph then why should a vehicle move beyond that limit anytime. Why can’t we make a law binding automobile manufacturers to make such vehicles which can’t move faster than prescribed speed limit?

Such a law can reduce fatality in an accident tremendously. If max. Speed limit for a two wheeler is 40 kph then it should not go beyond this limit at any condition. These days youngsters are in a habit of driving motor cycles on very high speed which is dangerous not only for them but others also who are using roads. Some bikes can even go up to 250 kph. What is the point in allowing such bikes to move on roads? For cars etc. it can be 90kph for heavy vehicles it can be 40-50kph. With such type of vehicles accidents would be much less fatal than present scenario. Also manufacturers should also be bound by law for limiting the acceleration of vehicles. What useful purpose does the acceleration of the kind 0- 100 in 3 seconds types solve? Apart from being less fatal there would be other benefits as well. Like reduction in cost of vehicle as less powerful engines would be required. Less fuel consumption as lesser power is required to cruise the vehicle which in turn means less pollution. Recently honourable Supreme Court of India has banned registration of vehicles more than 2000cc in Delhi. By making such automobiles true spirit of apex court judgement would be followed.

Apart from saving precious human life we would also be making a great contribution towards clean environment. Only drawback would be the commuting time would increase but it is nothing in comparison to safe travelling. Also it would be against business interests of powerful automobile lobby which would exert great pressure on govt. But it is for the govt. to take a call. I think a human life and a clean environment should be on topmost priority for any Nation.

Maggi Controversy

Maggi controversy

It’s good that quality consciousness has arrived in our  in area of edibles. Huge uproar in media regarding harmful ingredients in Maggi resulting into ban order by govt. of India. But there are certain fundamental questions which need to be answered-

-      -   Do we have comprehensive laws related to safety standards of edibles in our country?

-     -    Do we have adequate infrastructure to enforce such standards?

-       -  Is our legal system competent enough to punish defaulters in a reasonable time?

-     -    Is the punishment or fine adequate to act as a deterrence so as to stop reoccurrence of such events?

Now after banning Maggi can we have a guarantee by govt. that no product more harmful than Maggi is being sold in the country? If answer to it is no then why only Maggi? Do we have enough food inspectors in the country which regularly take samples of all edibles throughout the country? Do we have adequate testing laboratories where such samples can be checked on a regular basis? Do such laboratories follow standard operating procedures for testing?  Maggi is a product which is not consumed by majority of the population but what about milk which is consumed by majority of the population on daily basis. It is well known fact that to get pure milk in our country is very rare. But has govt done anything about it. Everyone knows about harmful chemicals used to ripen the fruits openly but nothing is being done. Vegetables irrigated with sewerage water are a known fact but nothing is being done. How many cases of food adulteration are registered in the country and of those how many  actually result into conviction. During festival seasons everyone is aware about the quality of sweets made and the type of raw material used for them but rarely do we see any action from govt. Even spurious lifesaving drugs are quite common. What about testing and standards laid for packaged drinking water? Is water supplied by municipalities upto the mark?

So by banning Maggi is problem of food safety solved? Govt should seriously think about these issues and invest heavily in this sector rather than working for populist measures for votes (which rarely get converted into actual votes otherwise a ruling party would never had lost any election)

first post

hi,
this is my first post on this blog. i intend to post my thoughts on it which may or may not be logical....