“Vitamin D deficiency is behind people getting sick from COVID.” It was more of an attack than a statement.

I had heard the theory before but was not aware of any reliable data to support it. So I asked, “How do you know that?”

Ready for my rebuff, he waved his phone in my face.  It showed an article from a website I had never heard of reporting on a study from a hospital in Spain. The article was short on details about the research and long on Vitamin D’s benefits in general. It also sported a prominent link for the purchase of Vitamin D supplements.  

I was skeptical.

“That’s interesting,” I replied as I handed back his device.

“You need to be treating people with Vitamin D,” he pressed.

The data he presented did not say that Vitamin D was useful as a treatment. It only said that the majority of patients with COVID-19 in that one hospital were deficient in the vitamin.  

I do not know what role — if any — Vitamin D plays in Coronavirus infections. The data so far is inconclusive. I pointed this out to him.

“Oh, come on. 80% of those patients were deficient in vitamin D. That can’t be by chance.”

That might be true, but just because two things correlate does not mean that one causes the other. It’s possible that some unrelated factor led to a deficiency in Vitamin D. You would need to know a lot more before you could say this study proves vitamin D deficiency causes severe COVID infections.

“Well, we would need to know more. Like what other medical problems or deficiencies those patients may have had.”

“Now you’re getting it, Doc,” he responded with a self-congratulatory smile. 

I wasn’t getting it. I wasn’t following where he was going.

“What do you mean?”

“The people who are getting sick all have other problems, like vitamins and, you know, stuff.”

People with other medical problems are more prone to hospitalization and death.  But, the intensity of his response surprised me.

“Ok…”

“Ya, it’s all a bunch of people who can’t be bothered to take care of themselves,” he said in less polite and more colorful language.

His argument boiled down to this; people get sick from Coronavirus because they fail to look after their health. As he saw it, they didn’t care enough to look after themselves, and for that reason, they deserved to get ill. It was a classic example of blaming the victim.  

“We shouldn’t be spending all this money and shutting down the economy to take care of people who can’t be bothered to take care of themselves,” was the summation of his argument.

I extricated myself from the conversation and moved on with my day.  But that conversation haunted me. Why had it been so crucial for this person to find a reason why some people became critically ill and died?

The Just World Hypothesis

The Just World Hypothesis was the answer that dawned on me. This logical fallacy occurs when people assume we live in a fair world— one in which actions predict appropriate consequences. It’s the belief that when people do good things, they will be rewarded. For example, when someone works hard, we expect them to get ahead. 

It’s also the belief that wickedness will be punished. An idea that comes out in common phrases like, “What goes around comes around,” or “They got what was coming to them.”

This belief can be functional when it maintains the idea that an individual can predictably influence the world. When it is functional, it helps us recognize injustice, work to right wrongs, and accept our limitations.

However, the Just World Hypothesis has a dark side. When it’s turned around, we look at the results people get and assume they deserved them. For example, it’s assumed that poor people are penniless because they are too lazy to work hard. This misuse of the Just World Hypothesis ignores other circumstances that hold people down.  

The Dark Side of the Just World Hypothesis.

The dark side of the Just World Fallacy leads people to deny others’ suffering, withdraw from situations they find uncomfortable, and reinterpret events. My acquaintance was reinterpreting the plight of COVID-19 as a fate they deserved. He believed people became seriously ill because they did something to deserve it.  

He settled on the idea that the victims lacked the moral character to care for themselves. They fell ill because of something they did—or, did not do in this case. Thus, COVID suffers deserved to get sick and even to die.

Why do people misuse the Just World Hypothesis?

Why do people buy into the negative side of the Just World Hypothesis? There are two reasons. The first is that it minimizes anxiety. Facing an invisible threat is scary. Having an explanation for the problem, like Vitamin D deficiency, gives them something they can do. And doing something, even something not proven to be medically effective, can still be useful in alleviating anxiety.

The second reason is that it makes them feel less vulnerable. By convincing themselves that Coronavirus only attacks people different from them, they don’t need to feel helpless.  It may not be scientifically accurate, but it is true to them on an emotional level, and that makes them feel less at risk.

It is a conclusion that allowed my “friend” to maintain his sense of well-being.  It gave him a feeling of control over a frightening situation.  He told himself, “I won’t get sick because I take a Vitamin D supplement every day.” It also allows him to preserve his belief in a Just World by explaining why others got sick.  

The problem is that he has to deny other people’s humanity to protect his own belief. To avoid feeling vulnerable, he has to convince himself people get sick because they deserved it. To do that, he needs to demonize and dehumanize those who become infected. 

The reasoning boils down to; “If the problem is in the world, I am at risk. If the problem is in others’ actions, character, or morals, then I am safe, as long as I am morally superior and take the right actions.”  Denigrating others’ character and behavior is the easiest way to do that.

This applies to situations besides the pandemic. The classic example is the sexually assaulted woman. After the attack, people will point to her behavior.  They will invent justifications like, “She should not have been there,” “She must have been sending the wrong signals,” or “She should not have dressed like that.” Those people are ignoring other circumstances, and explaining the assault based on the victim’s behavior.

How to avoid the Just World Fallacy.

Don’t jump to focus on something that someone else did wrong. Instead, step back and look at all the elements of the problem. The woman who was assaulted may not have been doing anything wrong. What she wore was likely the result of what was socially expected.  It may not have differed from what other women wore.  

Don’t jump to the first conclusion; consider all the evidence. Less healthy people are more at risk for complications from COVID.  But healthy people are also falling ill and dying. There is no simple solution to this problem, like taking a vitamin supplement. It is a complicated, multifactorial problem. Blaming the victims may make other people feel less at risk, but it does not make them any safer. Latching on to medical fads (like megadoses of Vitamin D) doesn’t make people safer.  Ignoring scientific advice (like social distancing and wearing masks) does increase people’s risk of becoming infected.

Conclusion

We have an innate desire to see the world as a fair place. The problem is that we can unfairly blame others for the harmful outcomes they experience to maintain that fallacy. But denigrating others and blaming the victim overlooks other circumstances that also contributed. Rather than blame others for their results, take a step back.  Ask yourself what other circumstances may have contributed to the outcome.  

We can make the world a more just place if we are willing to face our anxiety, accept our vulnerability, and recognize all the factors that lead to unfair outcomes.  Only then can we do something to make the world a more fair and just place.