Online First 2025-03-18

Arguments based on counterfactual conditionals are often employed to discuss and criticize authorities’ responses to various societal problems. Such arguments were prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic and served as a potent tool to undermine justifications for the measures proposed by governments to tackle the contagion. For decades, numerous attempts have been made to formulate a successful theory on the validity conditions of counterfactual conditionals, with structural causal models playing a prominent role in recent years. The causal nature of pandemics has been the subject of an increasing number of studies, focusing on their causes (such as the probability of a spillover event), their spread (e.g., asymptomatic carriers), and their effective management (e.g., the preparedness paradox and the prevention paradox). The prevailing view is that pandemics are nonlinear phenomena characterized by numerous positive and negative feedback loops, complicating their description in terms of causes and effects. This study aims to collect a sample of arguments used in the public debate in Poland during the COVID-19 pandemic. This sample is then used to determine the frequency, typical content, and contextual use of counterfactual conditionals in the discourse of opponents of government interventions in the initial years of the pandemic. The results are compared with the literature on the causality of pandemics and with the logical theories of counterfactual statements. Our findings suggest that counterfactual argumentation is particularly attractive to individuals recognized as experts, helping them maintain their social status and public image. However, counterfactual arguments necessarily simplify the causal complexity of the COVID-19 pandemic and thus should be regarded as generally invalid as they become meaningless when applied to complex phenomena like pandemics.