This argument is partly argumentum ad populum, appealing to the supposed normalcy of the argument, to validate the argument itself. The virus started there, so is it normal to think it might be correlated? Sure. Is it evidence? It's not.
The second argument is backwards. Reality is more wild, chaotic, unpredictable than the baseline set by entertainment, and that's because it's easiest to reach people when you build upon what they already expect. As TVtropes would put this: "Reality is unrealistic". If you put too much unexpected things in a medium, as you say people won't buy it. But while storytelling is often bound by this constraint, reality isn't.
Please note that I don't take a side with this comment. I want to know the truth, as I imagine many do, and I want to get there with a story that really makes sense, and doesn't just appeal to my nonrational parts.
The second argument is backwards. Reality is more wild, chaotic, unpredictable than the baseline set by entertainment, and that's because it's easiest to reach people when you build upon what they already expect. As TVtropes would put this: "Reality is unrealistic". If you put too much unexpected things in a medium, as you say people won't buy it. But while storytelling is often bound by this constraint, reality isn't.
Please note that I don't take a side with this comment. I want to know the truth, as I imagine many do, and I want to get there with a story that really makes sense, and doesn't just appeal to my nonrational parts.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnreali...