Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep writers safe. Cleaning before you're found,
Speaker 1: Hans out of no mask, no Metro need one. We
Speaker 1: have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our part
Speaker 1: to keep the DC area moving. Find out more at
Speaker 1: well mata dot com slash doing our part California where
Speaker 1: this past week thousands of people were massing on beaches
Speaker 1: and very close quarters. Simple question, is not safe if
Speaker 1: it's done with social distancing. Yes, if it's not done
Speaker 1: with social distancing, no little. Earlier on the Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Getty Show, we quoted a piece on the Hill dot
Speaker 1: com by Dr Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution that
Speaker 1: the data is in stop the panic, in the total isolation.
Speaker 1: And indeed Dr Atlas joins is now. He's the David
Speaker 1: and Joan try To Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution,
Speaker 1: Stanford University and a member of Hoover's Into the Hoover
Speaker 1: Institutions Working Group on Healthcare Policy. Dr Atlas, how are you, sir?
Speaker 1: Doing well? Thanks for having me good. It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1: It's been too long. So first of all, speaking of
Speaker 1: eminent publications. Will get to your piece in the Hill
Speaker 1: in a second. But the New York Times is out
Speaker 1: with the story just this morning alleging that the White
Speaker 1: House has new projections and indeed the death rate from
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen is set to rise steeply, and that
Speaker 1: what do you make of that if you had a
Speaker 1: chance to see that, Well, I haven't had the chance
Speaker 1: to see it, and I try not to have to
Speaker 1: defend what someone else has written, but I can say
Speaker 1: that we we we know there will be more people
Speaker 1: to die, because if you look at the numbers of
Speaker 1: people in serious condition, we know there are thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of them will die, there's no question. But you
Speaker 1: have to remember that the death from this does not
Speaker 1: occur until three to four weeks after the transmission infection.
Speaker 1: So because someone dies this week or five days from now,
Speaker 1: that is not a reflection of a new infection. That's
Speaker 1: a reflection of the infection three or four weeks ago. Right.
Speaker 1: And And another problem I have with the article and
Speaker 1: some of the things other people have said lately, as
Speaker 1: they're talking about the rise in cases, and the right
Speaker 1: the number of cases is utterly unknowable because we've had
Speaker 1: such an enormous rise in testing. That's exactly right. In fact,
Speaker 1: we can say it another way, which is that we
Speaker 1: know the number of cases is going up the more
Speaker 1: we test. By definition, right, exactly so, based on everything
Speaker 1: you've seen, where are we on the curve on suppressing
Speaker 1: this thing, on moving toward normalcy? And where should we be? Well,
Speaker 1: we know several things since this began. We have the evidence.
Speaker 1: Number one, we know who to protect. We know that
Speaker 1: the vulnerable people are older people. Typically, these are the
Speaker 1: people with underlying diseases that get hospitalized and have a
Speaker 1: much higher risk of dying. We know that uh people
Speaker 1: are also being hospitalized in that group. Younger people, healthier
Speaker 1: people have a very little, if any risk of a
Speaker 1: serious illness requiring hospitalization. We know the curves have flattened.
Speaker 1: We're not in the beginning anymore. We understand the whole
Speaker 1: goal of the policy originally was to see the curves flattened.
Speaker 1: Now we're talking about two curves hospitalizations per day, and
Speaker 1: that's per day. We're not talking about cases, because cases,
Speaker 1: as we know, are going to be revealed by more testing,
Speaker 1: that's not really a relevant statistic. In fact, we know
Speaker 1: half the people who get the infections are entirely asymptomatic
Speaker 1: in the overwhelming majority our mild disease cases. So the
Speaker 1: protection of the vulnerable is the targeted appropriate policy. See.
Speaker 1: And we know two other very important things. One is
Speaker 1: based on the isolation policy, and that is there has
Speaker 1: been a complete stoppage of medical care for people without
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen pandemic impacts, and so we have stopped essential
Speaker 1: critical healthcare. People are dying because they're not getting their chemotherapy,
Speaker 1: they're not getting their organ transplants, they're not getting their
Speaker 1: brain surgery, and what's worse, they're not bringing their children
Speaker 1: in for immunizations. People are not getting cancer screening. Biopsies
Speaker 1: of tumors that are potentially cancer are not getting done.
Speaker 1: This is a massive catastrophic healthcare crisis being created by
Speaker 1: the policy itself. And then the other thing that we
Speaker 1: know is that, based on decades of medical knowledge about immunology, virology,
Speaker 1: and infectious disease, viruses are when they are low, low impact,
Speaker 1: they get in set the in fact of a lot
Speaker 1: of people people develop antibodies that is immunity in that
Speaker 1: immunity in the population is the way that the whole
Speaker 1: population breaks the chain of contagiousness into including protecting vulnerable people.
Speaker 1: That is the exact reason why we give widespread immunizations,
Speaker 1: for instance, to set up population immunity. That is the
Speaker 1: reason why scientists are excited about transfusing antibodies from people
Speaker 1: who've had the infection to people who might get or
Speaker 1: in trouble with the infection, because those antibodies are presumed
Speaker 1: to be protective. Do we know that antibodies in this
Speaker 1: are protective yet? No, we don't know, but it would
Speaker 1: be unexpected that they're not, and you have evidence, actually
Speaker 1: work in progress evidence that that that they probably are.
Speaker 1: And so, by the way, we have decades of knowledge
Speaker 1: not just about viruses, but about coronaviruses. And this is
Speaker 1: the same family. Now this is not this is its
Speaker 1: own virus, but in the coronavirus family, we know from
Speaker 1: decades of experience that there is protection for roughly one
Speaker 1: to two years. It's it's expected that antibis are protective.
Speaker 1: That's the whole point of even developing an immunization for
Speaker 1: this disease itself, right, am I corrected. The current best
Speaker 1: opinion of science is that the repeat infections that we've
Speaker 1: heard about people who have gotten over the thing and
Speaker 1: reinfected were probably false positive tests. Well, because if this
Speaker 1: then can't be defeated by our own immune systems, even
Speaker 1: if after we've had it and gotten over it. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's truly terrifying. Well, we shouldn't be terrified about anything,
Speaker 1: first of all, because public policy should never be impacted
Speaker 1: by fear. It must be based on the science, the data,
Speaker 1: medical knowledge, and simply logic. Okay, so that's point number one.
Speaker 1: Point number two, there's sort of a frenzy about this, uh,
Speaker 1: this idea that we need a vaccine to reopen, and
Speaker 1: we have to realize there's some magic wand out there
Speaker 1: for a vaccine because most many vaccines are not protective.
Speaker 1: I'll give you an example, the flu vaccine. With the
Speaker 1: flu vaccine, if you look it up on the CDC
Speaker 1: website itself, it's only forty effective. That's point number one
Speaker 1: about the flu vaccine and a vaccine. Point number two,
Speaker 1: Even with the flu vaccine in the world, every single
Speaker 1: flu season, three hundreds of six hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: people die from the flu with the flu vaccine being given. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we have to be very careful about somehow there's
Speaker 1: some magical vaccine out there, not to mention it's going
Speaker 1: to take many, many months to get a vaccine. This
Speaker 1: is not happening tomorrow, and implement the you know, giving
Speaker 1: the vaccine up. So, I mean, there's all kinds of
Speaker 1: things that are being done that are based upon sort
Speaker 1: of a lack of logic and illogical and almost you know,
Speaker 1: almost irrational, uh sort of methodology. Here. The idea that
Speaker 1: we must treat and stop every single infection from COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen at all costs is simply just not rational or logical.
Speaker 1: That was never the goal of the policy. We have
Speaker 1: done what we wanted to do, which is flattening the curve.
Speaker 1: We must end this total isolation. It's it's harmful, it's
Speaker 1: it's destructive. Well, and I think a lot of what's
Speaker 1: driving policy at this point though the governors and the
Speaker 1: president's people painstakingly repeat over and over again that this
Speaker 1: is data driven, in science driven. What's missing is we're
Speaker 1: discussing earlier, is that you have economic damage, and the
Speaker 1: economy is inseparable from health outcomes. In half a dozen
Speaker 1: different ways, and as you pointed out, it's brought medical
Speaker 1: care to a standstill that will directly lead to the
Speaker 1: loss of life. And it's just so frustrating that we're
Speaker 1: hearing only one side of the argument being represented, and
Speaker 1: that is we must prevent as many cases as possible,
Speaker 1: and they're wilfully or just ignoring the huge other aspects
Speaker 1: of the thing. It's frustrating to listen to. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think those are good points, uh, And we're not
Speaker 1: really here to criticize what was done. We're only talking
Speaker 1: about what to do now and what we know now right,
Speaker 1: and what we know now really is who to protect.
Speaker 1: There is no science that says that people must be
Speaker 1: confined in their homes. There is no science to say
Speaker 1: that we must close all outdoor activities, parts and recreation
Speaker 1: and keep you inside your home. The science does not say,
Speaker 1: does not say to keep K through twelve schools closed.
Speaker 1: These are children with virtually no risk of serious disease
Speaker 1: or or you know, hospitalization. And there is some suggestion,
Speaker 1: although I don't know, the data is not out yet
Speaker 1: on this, that there's actually a low level of contagiousness.
Speaker 1: But I'm not sure about that yet, But we have
Speaker 1: to follow the science. I'm saying, follow the science and
Speaker 1: using medical knowledge to proceed. We there is no science
Speaker 1: to support continuing total isolation. Dr Scott Atlas is a
Speaker 1: Senior Fellow with the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Is
Speaker 1: most recent book is Restoring Quality Healthcare, A six Point
Speaker 1: Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost. Uh Scott, Dr Atlas,
Speaker 1: we appreciate your time very much, really interesting. Thanks thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. It's it's our pleasure. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: the one sightedness of this makes me nuts. Nobody ever
Speaker 1: says to Governor X, Y or Z, you're talking about
Speaker 1: presenting your preventing rather cases at what cost? At what
Speaker 1: cost are we doing is? I mean, even if it
Speaker 1: were effective? And Dr Atlas obviously had some serious questions
Speaker 1: about the effectiveness or necessity of some of the things
Speaker 1: that we're doing. Even if if it were effected, given
Speaker 1: the fact that there are absolutely and disputably enormous costs
Speaker 1: to the policy, we need to see both sides of
Speaker 1: the ledger. And I've been making the argument for quite
Speaker 1: some time about the economy being in a you know,
Speaker 1: um being linked to health outcomes. And that's absolutely true.
Speaker 1: But is the good doctor pointed out it? No, it's
Speaker 1: it's even more direct than that. People aren't getting chemotherapy.
Speaker 1: They're gonna die. So are you trading tow COVID lives
Speaker 1: for one chemotherapy life? How about two COVID lives for
Speaker 1: two or maybe it's two COVID lives for three, four,
Speaker 1: five chemotherapy lives? Is anybody doing that math? Or are
Speaker 1: they just listening to the muling of the media and
Speaker 1: and and you know it will become obsessed with this
Speaker 1: thing because it's such a clickbait and such a good
Speaker 1: headline grabber, and and you know, the policies are a
Speaker 1: response to the you know, the emotional about first to
Speaker 1: the media mostly and not based on any rational weighing
Speaker 1: of costs and benefits. All right, Uh so we're gonna
Speaker 1: finish strong. In a moment or two. Have the absolutely
Speaker 1: terrific mayor of Newport Beach, California taking on the governor,
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom. And what he says is just great. You're
Speaker 1: gonna want to hear it. It's next when you're ready
Speaker 1: to ride metro, we want you to know we're ready
Speaker 1: for you. Here are just a few of the people
Speaker 1: at Metro to tell you how we're doing our part
Speaker 1: to keep riders safe. Were cleaning before you've found hansund
Speaker 1: of size of no masks, no Metro need one. We
Speaker 1: have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our part
Speaker 1: to keep the DC area moving. Find out more at
Speaker 1: well mata dot com, slash doing our part