[teejers1]

Let me clarify.  He was interviewed about the WHO backtracking on asymptomatic transmission and they cited *at that time* that asymptomatic transmission could be 40%.  Atlas was asked what he thought of the reversal from the previous day's comment. He said it was political, there is lots of evidence that asymptomatic transmission is rare, and never brought up the 40% figure nor did the interviewer.  If you hadn't read the WHO statement, you'd never known what they said.  It's just one example of many of his selective use of data that I would call "malpractice" in public health policy.

Point of parliamentary inquiry:  what if the guy had said "I think this virus is going to run its course no matter what and that the US should not shut down its economy and "overreact" to it.   And that will cost additional lives, but it is a better policy option than shutting down the economy and unemploying millions, saddling the taxpayer with untold billions of additional debt, and leading to other damage of Americans (psychological and otherwise) that is impossible to tally?" 

Would the guy (a) be heartless, (b) have his priorities wrong, © be "wrong," or (d) be a tool?*  

I could see disagreeing with the guy; I could see vehemently disagreeing with him; I'm not sure he would be 'wrong' or 'a tool.'  He just would have a different viewpoint on the pandemic and response to same.  

*  IIRC, a poster here questioned the wisdom of shut down on those grounds, and was roundly chastised in these parts.  I think time (and results, particularly in the US) has made his position more reasonable not less.  But I'm sure others here disagree (perhaps vehemently).

[teejers1]

Let me clarify.  He was interviewed about the WHO backtracking on asymptomatic transmission and they cited *at that time* that asymptomatic transmission could be 40%.  Atlas was asked what he thought of the reversal from the previous day's comment. He said it was political, there is lots of evidence that asymptomatic transmission is rare, and never brought up the 40% figure nor did the interviewer.  If you hadn't read the WHO statement, you'd never known what they said.  It's just one example of many of his selective use of data that I would call "malpractice" in public health policy.

Point of parliamentary inquiry:  what if the guy had said "I think this virus is going to run its course no matter what and that the US should not shut down its economy and "overreact" to it.   And that will cost additional lives, but it is a better policy option than shutting down the economy and unemploying millions, saddling the taxpayer with untold billions of additional debt, and leading to other damage of Americans (psychological and otherwise) that is impossible to tally?" 

Would the guy (a) be heartless, (b) have his priorities wrong, © be "wrong," or (d) be a tool?*  

I could see disagreeing with the guy; I could see vehemently disagreeing with him; I'm not sure he would be 'wrong' or 'a tool.'  He just would have a different viewpoint on the pandemic and response to same.  

*  IIRC, a poster here questioned the wisdom of shut down on those grounds, and was roundly chastised in these parts.  I think time (and results, particularly in the US) has made his position more reasonable not less.  But I'm sure others here disagree (perhaps vehemently).