11-17-2020, 11:12 PM
I'm fairly certain that government employees and advisors enjoy broad immunity for anything they do within the scope of their job. Since Atlas was brought on to advise the President, anything he says, no matter how bonkers it is, is protected.
Ultimately, the reason that I don't think Atlas ought to be fired, is that this is a policy disagreement, and no matter how bonkers his policy suggestions seem, they are not so bonkers that a well-respected European country didn't try to follow such a strategy. That they seem to have abandoned it might be a strike against him, but ultimately we are asking people where to draw the line.
Let's try a thought experiment here:
Let's imagine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had 1/10th the mortality it has (and a concomitant decline in morbidity), in which case it really would be similar to influenza, or, if that is too high, 1/100th the mortality. Ultimately, there comes a point at which the morbidity and mortality is low enough that I don't think any sane human would call for restrictions.
On the other hand, imagine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was 10 times as deadly, or 100 times as deadly. At that point, I don't think any sane human objects to the most rigorous lock-downs, isolation, and quarantine, with deployment of the military for enforcement if necessary. As they say, there are no atheists in a foxhole.
What we have is something in the middle. Most people won't die from COVID-19, and, in fact, there's a decent chance that someone will get it and remain asymptomatic. Now, in my mind, enough people die of COVID-19 that it is worth taking reasonable precautions to reduce risk, and to call on others to do so as well. That also seems to be the consensus of most, but not all, experts, and a slight majority of the population as a whole, but not everyone, and I don't think Atlas' views should invite censure, even though I don't think they should be followed.
BC
Ultimately, the reason that I don't think Atlas ought to be fired, is that this is a policy disagreement, and no matter how bonkers his policy suggestions seem, they are not so bonkers that a well-respected European country didn't try to follow such a strategy. That they seem to have abandoned it might be a strike against him, but ultimately we are asking people where to draw the line.
Let's try a thought experiment here:
Let's imagine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had 1/10th the mortality it has (and a concomitant decline in morbidity), in which case it really would be similar to influenza, or, if that is too high, 1/100th the mortality. Ultimately, there comes a point at which the morbidity and mortality is low enough that I don't think any sane human would call for restrictions.
On the other hand, imagine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was 10 times as deadly, or 100 times as deadly. At that point, I don't think any sane human objects to the most rigorous lock-downs, isolation, and quarantine, with deployment of the military for enforcement if necessary. As they say, there are no atheists in a foxhole.
What we have is something in the middle. Most people won't die from COVID-19, and, in fact, there's a decent chance that someone will get it and remain asymptomatic. Now, in my mind, enough people die of COVID-19 that it is worth taking reasonable precautions to reduce risk, and to call on others to do so as well. That also seems to be the consensus of most, but not all, experts, and a slight majority of the population as a whole, but not everyone, and I don't think Atlas' views should invite censure, even though I don't think they should be followed.
BC