[DocSavage87]

He's never changed his opinions, despite all evidence to the contrary,

Which may make him very very wrong, but does not make him a "tool".

and that's why he was selected to be part of the task force despite his lack of expertise in either epidemiology or infectious diseases.

He was selected because his opinion matches Trump's, at least for the moment. His expertise is irrelevant to the POTUS, unfortunately. The fact he has some medical background helps Trump's argument (as opposed to him being say a carpet installer), but it doesn't make him qualified. Scott Atlas probably holds the opinions he does irrespective of Trump. He probably can't defend them. Unfortunately, he probably will never have to do so.

These are the facts:
1) Atlas has been on record from a very early time in minimizing the threat of COVID-19, writing opinion columns doing so (including that Mar 26 one saying we might see as much as 10k dead).
2) He has been doing videos about testing strategies really downplaying asymptomatic spread, including heralding the unfortunate WHO statement that asymptomatic transmission was rare (which they immediately backtracked on, saying at that time up to 40% could be asymptomatic transmission, not that Atlas ever backtracked).
3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci.

Is there some other meaning of the word "tool" that I'm being criticized for using here? Because I also think he's an ass for being on the wrong side of the scientific debate and not actually examining the evidence counter to his position, particularly since he's already been off by more than 10x. I think he's violating his Hippocratic Oath and clearly doing harm.

[DocSavage87]

He's never changed his opinions, despite all evidence to the contrary,

Which may make him very very wrong, but does not make him a "tool".

and that's why he was selected to be part of the task force despite his lack of expertise in either epidemiology or infectious diseases.

He was selected because his opinion matches Trump's, at least for the moment. His expertise is irrelevant to the POTUS, unfortunately. The fact he has some medical background helps Trump's argument (as opposed to him being say a carpet installer), but it doesn't make him qualified. Scott Atlas probably holds the opinions he does irrespective of Trump. He probably can't defend them. Unfortunately, he probably will never have to do so.

These are the facts:
1) Atlas has been on record from a very early time in minimizing the threat of COVID-19, writing opinion columns doing so (including that Mar 26 one saying we might see as much as 10k dead).
2) He has been doing videos about testing strategies really downplaying asymptomatic spread, including heralding the unfortunate WHO statement that asymptomatic transmission was rare (which they immediately backtracked on, saying at that time up to 40% could be asymptomatic transmission, not that Atlas ever backtracked).
3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci.

Is there some other meaning of the word "tool" that I'm being criticized for using here? Because I also think he's an ass for being on the wrong side of the scientific debate and not actually examining the evidence counter to his position, particularly since he's already been off by more than 10x. I think he's violating his Hippocratic Oath and clearly doing harm.

[Goose]

3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci.

He would be a "tool" if his beliefs were formed for the purpose of pleasing Trump. As you have pointed out, those beliefs predate his selection to the advisory board. Undoubtedly, he doesn't believe his views are "unscientific". I can't imagine what his rationale may be, but I haven't heard it yet, and I doubt that I will ever have the opportunity to do so. Those questions just aren't asked these days.

Is there some other meaning of the word "tool" that I'm being criticized for using here?  Because I also think he's an ass for being on the wrong side of the scientific debate and not actually examining the evidence counter to his position, particularly since he's already been off by more than 10x.  I think he's violating his Hippocratic Oath and clearly doing harm.

A "tool" is somebody or something that does your bidding, no matter what that bidding may be. Scott Atlas hasn't done that. His position has been consistent. Consistently wrong probably (OK, most assuredly IMHO), but not derived from Trump's influence.
I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate. Dr. Fauci has also been wrong a few times as well, as he would be (and has been) fully honest about (mostly). Note also that many of the models we still are using during this epidemic were wildly incorrect in their forecasts until they were "improved". The "wrong side" of scientific debate has a history of being a moving target. Do I think there is any chance at all that Scott Atlas has been correct in his predictions? Obviously not, as the facts speak for themselves. Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either. You and I would both find it hard to understand how he can continue to hold the positions he does in the face of what we think we know. Let's hear what he has to say (if he ever even attempts to justify his position).
I agree he has absolutely no business being on the COVID-19 team at the federal level. There are plenty of better qualified candidates. However, Trump wants somebody who agrees with him, and that is what he got. President's do that. This POTUS has a history of appointing "yes" men who eventually say "no". Then they become "very, very bad". and resign.

[Goose]

3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci.

He would be a "tool" if his beliefs were formed for the purpose of pleasing Trump. As you have pointed out, those beliefs predate his selection to the advisory board. Undoubtedly, he doesn't believe his views are "unscientific". I can't imagine what his rationale may be, but I haven't heard it yet, and I doubt that I will ever have the opportunity to do so. Those questions just aren't asked these days.

Is there some other meaning of the word "tool" that I'm being criticized for using here?  Because I also think he's an ass for being on the wrong side of the scientific debate and not actually examining the evidence counter to his position, particularly since he's already been off by more than 10x.  I think he's violating his Hippocratic Oath and clearly doing harm.

A "tool" is somebody or something that does your bidding, no matter what that bidding may be. Scott Atlas hasn't done that. His position has been consistent. Consistently wrong probably (OK, most assuredly IMHO), but not derived from Trump's influence.
I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate. Dr. Fauci has also been wrong a few times as well, as he would be (and has been) fully honest about (mostly). Note also that many of the models we still are using during this epidemic were wildly incorrect in their forecasts until they were "improved". The "wrong side" of scientific debate has a history of being a moving target. Do I think there is any chance at all that Scott Atlas has been correct in his predictions? Obviously not, as the facts speak for themselves. Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either. You and I would both find it hard to understand how he can continue to hold the positions he does in the face of what we think we know. Let's hear what he has to say (if he ever even attempts to justify his position).
I agree he has absolutely no business being on the COVID-19 team at the federal level. There are plenty of better qualified candidates. However, Trump wants somebody who agrees with him, and that is what he got. President's do that. This POTUS has a history of appointing "yes" men who eventually say "no". Then they become "very, very bad". and resign.

[lex24]

I don’t know Scott Atlas from Adam’’s off ox.  But I am struck by how perfectly this discussion fits into one of Jonathan Haidt’s “three great untruths”, this one being “Us vs Them (Life is a battle between good people and evil people”. ) It is not enough to disagree, we must prove our moral righteousness by always questioning the “other sides”  motives and “morality.”  Adams therefore is not just “wrong”. He’s a “tool”. Part of a plot to lead us to dictatorship.

I am struck how people so readily take a holier-than-thou attitude, never mentioning the actual evidence of how a person behaved and how badly he botched his predictions before painting other people as hysterical, unreasoned mobs.  If you don't know Scott Atlas at all, why are you even commenting on how others feel about him.  If you did see him hawking his perspective well before we even had decent data -- about how this was all an overreaction and continuing to say the same all through this pandemic, then maybe you should comment on that.  That's why he's a tool.  He's never changed his opinions, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that's why he was selected to be part of the task force despite his lack of expertise in either epidemiology or infectious diseases.

I used Adams as an example.  I wasn’t and am not commenting on his abilities or lack thereof.  I lack the qualifications to do so.  I fail, honestly, to see the “holier than thou” aspect you comment upon. But just so it’s clear, I don’t put myself in a category of one that does not  fall into the moral righteousness we all do.  I just try a little harder not to do that than I used to.  And I believe in the power of honest open debate. If we can actually have that one day it would be nice.  I don’t mean the board.  I mean the country. 

 Tool to me also means jerk.  I also was responding to the helping creating a  “dictatorship” bit. I did not put anyone in the category of “hysterical” or speak of “mobs”.

[lex24]

I don’t know Scott Atlas from Adam’’s off ox.  But I am struck by how perfectly this discussion fits into one of Jonathan Haidt’s “three great untruths”, this one being “Us vs Them (Life is a battle between good people and evil people”. ) It is not enough to disagree, we must prove our moral righteousness by always questioning the “other sides”  motives and “morality.”  Adams therefore is not just “wrong”. He’s a “tool”. Part of a plot to lead us to dictatorship.

I am struck how people so readily take a holier-than-thou attitude, never mentioning the actual evidence of how a person behaved and how badly he botched his predictions before painting other people as hysterical, unreasoned mobs.  If you don't know Scott Atlas at all, why are you even commenting on how others feel about him.  If you did see him hawking his perspective well before we even had decent data -- about how this was all an overreaction and continuing to say the same all through this pandemic, then maybe you should comment on that.  That's why he's a tool.  He's never changed his opinions, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that's why he was selected to be part of the task force despite his lack of expertise in either epidemiology or infectious diseases.

I used Adams as an example.  I wasn’t and am not commenting on his abilities or lack thereof.  I lack the qualifications to do so.  I fail, honestly, to see the “holier than thou” aspect you comment upon. But just so it’s clear, I don’t put myself in a category of one that does not  fall into the moral righteousness we all do.  I just try a little harder not to do that than I used to.  And I believe in the power of honest open debate. If we can actually have that one day it would be nice.  I don’t mean the board.  I mean the country. 

 Tool to me also means jerk.  I also was responding to the helping creating a  “dictatorship” bit. I did not put anyone in the category of “hysterical” or speak of “mobs”.

[DocSavage87]

3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci. 

He would be a "tool" if his beliefs were formed for the purpose of pleasing Trump... A "tool" is somebody or something that does your bidding, no matter what that bidding may be. Scott Atlas hasn't done that. 

I apologize.  I didn't realize the slang use of "tool" required you to form or change your beliefs to please someone else as opposed to just being used to advance their agenda.  If I offended people because of my lack of slang knowledge, I apologize.  So I amend my comment to say he's unqualified, patently wrong, and being used by others to advance their agenda. 

I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate.

For your analogy to hold, Einstein, in addition to appearing on talk shows and writing opinion columns saying how the quantum physicists were silly, would have to join a task force that actively suppressed funding to those physicists :)

Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either.

I disagree.  Show me one piece where he acknowledges his massive underestimate of the death count or even thinks about the reasons why that was the case?  I can show you many pieces where he continues to advance his "overreaction" theme in April, May, June, July and now.  He went on a talk show after the WHO expert backtracked from her asymptomatic transmission comment, described her backtracking as just political pressure, and completely ignored the WHO statement that 40% of transmission could be asymptomatic.  Just left that little tidbit completely out of the interview.  

I'll give you that another interpretation is that he does know about all of the counter evidence and never addresses it or publicizes it to advance his own agenda.  If that's the case, then he really has violated his Hippocratic Oath in much the same way as a doc who continually performs non-standard procedures and consciously ignores bad outcomes.  He is a neuroradiologist, not an epidemiologist or an infectious disease expert, pushing dangerous health care policy at a large scale.

[DocSavage87]

3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci. 

He would be a "tool" if his beliefs were formed for the purpose of pleasing Trump... A "tool" is somebody or something that does your bidding, no matter what that bidding may be. Scott Atlas hasn't done that. 

I apologize.  I didn't realize the slang use of "tool" required you to form or change your beliefs to please someone else as opposed to just being used to advance their agenda.  If I offended people because of my lack of slang knowledge, I apologize.  So I amend my comment to say he's unqualified, patently wrong, and being used by others to advance their agenda. 

I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate.

For your analogy to hold, Einstein, in addition to appearing on talk shows and writing opinion columns saying how the quantum physicists were silly, would have to join a task force that actively suppressed funding to those physicists :)

Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either.

I disagree.  Show me one piece where he acknowledges his massive underestimate of the death count or even thinks about the reasons why that was the case?  I can show you many pieces where he continues to advance his "overreaction" theme in April, May, June, July and now.  He went on a talk show after the WHO expert backtracked from her asymptomatic transmission comment, described her backtracking as just political pressure, and completely ignored the WHO statement that 40% of transmission could be asymptomatic.  Just left that little tidbit completely out of the interview.  

I'll give you that another interpretation is that he does know about all of the counter evidence and never addresses it or publicizes it to advance his own agenda.  If that's the case, then he really has violated his Hippocratic Oath in much the same way as a doc who continually performs non-standard procedures and consciously ignores bad outcomes.  He is a neuroradiologist, not an epidemiologist or an infectious disease expert, pushing dangerous health care policy at a large scale.

[Goose]

I apologize.  I didn't realize the slang use of "tool" required you to form or change your beliefs to please someone else as opposed to just being used to advance their agenda.  If I offended people because of my lack of slang knowledge, I apologize.  So I amend my comment to say he's unqualified, patently wrong, and being used by others to advance their agenda.

I think the term that best describes what you are seeing here is the concept pioneered by the CCP. He is a "useful idiot". He actually believes what he is saying.

I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate.

For your analogy to hold, Einstein, in addition to appearing on talk shows and writing opinion columns saying how the quantum physicists were silly, would have to join a task force that actively suppressed funding to those physicists :)

Fortunately, no such joint task force existed and science was allowed to play out with only minimal government intervention. It is however unquestionably true that the fact Einstein did not embrace quantum mechanics held back it's acceptance by the "scientific community".

Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either.

I disagree.  Show me one piece where he acknowledges his massive underestimate of the death count or even thinks about the reasons why that was the case?  I can show you many pieces where he continues to advance his "overreaction" theme in April, May, June, July and now.  He went on a talk show after the WHO expert backtracked from her asymptomatic transmission comment, described her backtracking as just political pressure, and completely ignored the WHO statement that 40% of transmission could be asymptomatic.  Just left that little tidbit completely out of the interview.

You are correct I know of no example of him acknowledging  his underestimate or that he contemplates why he was wrong. That doesn't prove he didn't do so. It is the old "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I would hope a member of the press would question him about this. It is also not uncommon not to cite every counterargument to the point you are trying to make. That is kind of up to the interviewer, or to the rest of us following along at home. In fairness, asymptomatic transmission has gone from "probably not much" to "could be 40%". However, we still don't really know where we stand there. "Could be" is not "is". However, we are certainly beyond "probably not much".

I'll give you that another interpretation is that he does know about all of the counter evidence and never addresses it or publicizes it to advance his own agenda.  If that's the case, then he really has violated his Hippocratic Oath in much the same way as a doc who continually performs non-standard procedures and consciously ignores bad outcomes.  He is a neuroradiologist, not an epidemiologist or an infectious disease expert, pushing dangerous health care policy at a large scale.

Could be true. However, what agenda is he advancing, other that he is right and others are wrong? There are Docs who make money from being quacks, and it is obvious what they gain. In some cases, they believe they are doing the right thing and have all kinds of excuses about why things didn't work out. This doesn't make them less liable, just less venal.
However, assuming Scott Atlas is doing something to advance "his own agenda" without any evidence is too big a leap for me. I have found that arrogance and pride is usually sufficient to explain such behavior, particularly among academics. For now, why he is doing what he is doing is much less important than debunking any errors that he is making. To do so effectively, we need to stick to where we can show he is wrong and not reach into areas we can't prove. That would make us like him.

[Goose]

I apologize.  I didn't realize the slang use of "tool" required you to form or change your beliefs to please someone else as opposed to just being used to advance their agenda.  If I offended people because of my lack of slang knowledge, I apologize.  So I amend my comment to say he's unqualified, patently wrong, and being used by others to advance their agenda.

I think the term that best describes what you are seeing here is the concept pioneered by the CCP. He is a "useful idiot". He actually believes what he is saying.

I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate.

For your analogy to hold, Einstein, in addition to appearing on talk shows and writing opinion columns saying how the quantum physicists were silly, would have to join a task force that actively suppressed funding to those physicists :)

Fortunately, no such joint task force existed and science was allowed to play out with only minimal government intervention. It is however unquestionably true that the fact Einstein did not embrace quantum mechanics held back it's acceptance by the "scientific community".

Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either.

I disagree.  Show me one piece where he acknowledges his massive underestimate of the death count or even thinks about the reasons why that was the case?  I can show you many pieces where he continues to advance his "overreaction" theme in April, May, June, July and now.  He went on a talk show after the WHO expert backtracked from her asymptomatic transmission comment, described her backtracking as just political pressure, and completely ignored the WHO statement that 40% of transmission could be asymptomatic.  Just left that little tidbit completely out of the interview.

You are correct I know of no example of him acknowledging  his underestimate or that he contemplates why he was wrong. That doesn't prove he didn't do so. It is the old "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I would hope a member of the press would question him about this. It is also not uncommon not to cite every counterargument to the point you are trying to make. That is kind of up to the interviewer, or to the rest of us following along at home. In fairness, asymptomatic transmission has gone from "probably not much" to "could be 40%". However, we still don't really know where we stand there. "Could be" is not "is". However, we are certainly beyond "probably not much".

I'll give you that another interpretation is that he does know about all of the counter evidence and never addresses it or publicizes it to advance his own agenda.  If that's the case, then he really has violated his Hippocratic Oath in much the same way as a doc who continually performs non-standard procedures and consciously ignores bad outcomes.  He is a neuroradiologist, not an epidemiologist or an infectious disease expert, pushing dangerous health care policy at a large scale.

Could be true. However, what agenda is he advancing, other that he is right and others are wrong? There are Docs who make money from being quacks, and it is obvious what they gain. In some cases, they believe they are doing the right thing and have all kinds of excuses about why things didn't work out. This doesn't make them less liable, just less venal.
However, assuming Scott Atlas is doing something to advance "his own agenda" without any evidence is too big a leap for me. I have found that arrogance and pride is usually sufficient to explain such behavior, particularly among academics. For now, why he is doing what he is doing is much less important than debunking any errors that he is making. To do so effectively, we need to stick to where we can show he is wrong and not reach into areas we can't prove. That would make us like him.

[DocSavage87]

Fortunately, no such joint task force existed and science was allowed to play out with only minimal government intervention. It is however unquestionably true that the fact Einstein did not embrace quantum mechanics held back it's acceptance by the "scientific community".

Also, Einstein was very much a leader in the field he was commenting and it was undergoing a scientific revolution.  Atlas is not.

In fairness, asymptomatic transmission has gone from "probably not much" to "could be 40%". However, we still don't really know where we stand there. "Could be" is not "is". However, we are certainly beyond "probably not much".

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.

[DocSavage87]

Fortunately, no such joint task force existed and science was allowed to play out with only minimal government intervention. It is however unquestionably true that the fact Einstein did not embrace quantum mechanics held back it's acceptance by the "scientific community".

Also, Einstein was very much a leader in the field he was commenting and it was undergoing a scientific revolution.  Atlas is not.

In fairness, asymptomatic transmission has gone from "probably not much" to "could be 40%". However, we still don't really know where we stand there. "Could be" is not "is". However, we are certainly beyond "probably not much".

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.

[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).

[Mick]

And I believe in the power of honest open debate. If we can actually have that one day it would be nice.  I don’t mean the board.  I mean the country. 

I think it's very difficult to have a truly challenging debate, particularly when people have entrenched opinions and different life experiences and see things from different angles.

My youngest son was in a terrible third grade, team-taught by two "teachers" who genuinely didn't know what they were doing. As I've posted, my mother, mother-in-law and my wife were all teachers.  Mrs. Mick taught in the Palo Alto Unified School District.  She had her student teaching experiences with a Cupertino SD Teacher of the Year.  When PA Unified started to hire teachers again, they received 400 resumes for five positions, and gave Mrs. Mick her choice of the five.  She also graduated magna cum laude from our alma mater.  And, our kids turned out all right, largely thanks to her.

These teachers were pretty miserable from the beginning, and my wife identified nine separate areas she wanted to discuss with them.  Surely, she thought, she could convince them to see reason.  Alas, no.  Long story short, they listened and literally didn't respond.  Sort of like today's (fill in the name of political party) adherents.  No one is interested in listening or thinking.

I will say this...there are people today who claim to want to have challenging conversations. I think that's shorthand for "I want you to listen to my grievances, grovel in abject misery, beg forgiveness and turn over $xx." I don't think they really want a challenging conversation.

[Mick]

And I believe in the power of honest open debate. If we can actually have that one day it would be nice.  I don’t mean the board.  I mean the country. 

I think it's very difficult to have a truly challenging debate, particularly when people have entrenched opinions and different life experiences and see things from different angles.

My youngest son was in a terrible third grade, team-taught by two "teachers" who genuinely didn't know what they were doing. As I've posted, my mother, mother-in-law and my wife were all teachers.  Mrs. Mick taught in the Palo Alto Unified School District.  She had her student teaching experiences with a Cupertino SD Teacher of the Year.  When PA Unified started to hire teachers again, they received 400 resumes for five positions, and gave Mrs. Mick her choice of the five.  She also graduated magna cum laude from our alma mater.  And, our kids turned out all right, largely thanks to her.

These teachers were pretty miserable from the beginning, and my wife identified nine separate areas she wanted to discuss with them.  Surely, she thought, she could convince them to see reason.  Alas, no.  Long story short, they listened and literally didn't respond.  Sort of like today's (fill in the name of political party) adherents.  No one is interested in listening or thinking.

I will say this...there are people today who claim to want to have challenging conversations. I think that's shorthand for "I want you to listen to my grievances, grovel in abject misery, beg forgiveness and turn over $xx." I don't think they really want a challenging conversation.

[BostonCard]

 Unless and until we can discuss issues openly, honestly, rationally and without moral indignation towards those with whom we disagree, we will, imo, continue to spiral down this path.

Totally agree.

It's a nice sentiment we should all agree with.  Unfortunately the first part of his comment is an attack on those with whom he disagrees with moral indignation toward their obviously poor analysis and arguments lacking nuance.  He never touches the actual evidence and points raised by those people because obviously they are not arguing in good faith.

I have known Lex personally for many years.  And while we disagree politically (and specifically about Atlas), I have never known him to argue in bad faith.

BC

[BostonCard]

 Unless and until we can discuss issues openly, honestly, rationally and without moral indignation towards those with whom we disagree, we will, imo, continue to spiral down this path.

Totally agree.

It's a nice sentiment we should all agree with.  Unfortunately the first part of his comment is an attack on those with whom he disagrees with moral indignation toward their obviously poor analysis and arguments lacking nuance.  He never touches the actual evidence and points raised by those people because obviously they are not arguing in good faith.

I have known Lex personally for many years.  And while we disagree politically (and specifically about Atlas), I have never known him to argue in bad faith.

BC

[Goose]

I will say this...there are people today who claim to want to have challenging conversations.  I think that's shorthand for "I want you to listen to my grievances, grovel in abject misery, beg forgiveness and turn over $xx."  I don't think they really want a challenging conversation.

I will disagree with you here a bit. The people who are desirous of the challenging conversations are often of the belief that their arguments are so compelling that nobody could possibly respond by doing anything other than grovel in abject misery, beg forgiveness and turn over $xx. When that doesn't happen, we then see what the "real" agenda is. If the people involved are "my way and only my way", you will be right. I am optimistic enough to believe that many people really do want to reason together and come up with a solution they can all live with. It won't be easy, but it can happen in most cases. If we can just keep twitter, Fox News, CNN, etc. out of it long enough to avoid complete polarization, good (not perfect) solutions can be found.
There are many things in our society that are "broken" to one degree or another. Many of them have been let fester for years because we couldn't agree on a perfect solution. Maybe this COVID-19 epidemic can cause us to realize that we can't just sit here and let these things eat us up. We can't afford it any more.

[Goose]

I will say this...there are people today who claim to want to have challenging conversations.  I think that's shorthand for "I want you to listen to my grievances, grovel in abject misery, beg forgiveness and turn over $xx."  I don't think they really want a challenging conversation.

I will disagree with you here a bit. The people who are desirous of the challenging conversations are often of the belief that their arguments are so compelling that nobody could possibly respond by doing anything other than grovel in abject misery, beg forgiveness and turn over $xx. When that doesn't happen, we then see what the "real" agenda is. If the people involved are "my way and only my way", you will be right. I am optimistic enough to believe that many people really do want to reason together and come up with a solution they can all live with. It won't be easy, but it can happen in most cases. If we can just keep twitter, Fox News, CNN, etc. out of it long enough to avoid complete polarization, good (not perfect) solutions can be found.
There are many things in our society that are "broken" to one degree or another. Many of them have been let fester for years because we couldn't agree on a perfect solution. Maybe this COVID-19 epidemic can cause us to realize that we can't just sit here and let these things eat us up. We can't afford it any more.

[DocSavage87]

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).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.

[DocSavage87]

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).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.

[dabigv13]

I agree with your definition of tool. And Atlas qualifies. Gross that he's a part of our official federal response to this.

[dabigv13]

I agree with your definition of tool. And Atlas qualifies. Gross that he's a part of our official federal response to this.

[Goose]

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.

I fully understand what you are objecting to. However, in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.

[Goose]

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.

I fully understand what you are objecting to. However, in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.

[DocSavage87]

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.

I fully understand what you are objecting to. However, in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.

Doctors and scientists shouldn't be cherry picking data.  The best line I've read: "When you mix science and politics, you get politics."

[DocSavage87]

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.

I fully understand what you are objecting to. However, in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.

Doctors and scientists shouldn't be cherry picking data.  The best line I've read: "When you mix science and politics, you get politics."

[teejers1]

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).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.
[/quote]

How about you answer the question?

(I actually agree that this guy probably fits the definition of a tool; I was just wondering if you would use that term to describe others whose policy approach to Covid you might disagree with?  It actually was a point of parliamentary clarification.).

[teejers1]

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).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.
[/quote]

How about you answer the question?

(I actually agree that this guy probably fits the definition of a tool; I was just wondering if you would use that term to describe others whose policy approach to Covid you might disagree with?  It actually was a point of parliamentary clarification.).

[DocSavage87]

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).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.

How about you answer the question?

(I actually agree that this guy probably fits the definition of a tool; I was just wondering if you would use that term to describe others whose policy approach to Covid you might disagree with?  It actually was a point of parliamentary clarification.).

If Atlas had said that he'd be (1) wrong because we can control how many people get the virus as has been shown by many other countries, (2) simplistic because the "shutdown vs open-up" argument dismisses myriad responses in between, and (3) still unqualified to be a task force member.  Because he's wrong many more people will get sick, die or develop long-lasting issues, and our economy will be hurt much more than a correct response.  Controlling the virus is the answer to helping our economy and getting back to normal life.  You don't just say we're going back to normal.  It smacks of the same fantastical thinking that Trump constantly espouses because he wants everyone to think the US is in great shape.  Just because you want it to be so don't make it so.  Follow the science.

If Atlas then was added to Trump's task force and replaced Fauci at the TV press conferences, he'd be a "tool" as well.

[DocSavage87]

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).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.

How about you answer the question?

(I actually agree that this guy probably fits the definition of a tool; I was just wondering if you would use that term to describe others whose policy approach to Covid you might disagree with?  It actually was a point of parliamentary clarification.).

If Atlas had said that he'd be (1) wrong because we can control how many people get the virus as has been shown by many other countries, (2) simplistic because the "shutdown vs open-up" argument dismisses myriad responses in between, and (3) still unqualified to be a task force member.  Because he's wrong many more people will get sick, die or develop long-lasting issues, and our economy will be hurt much more than a correct response.  Controlling the virus is the answer to helping our economy and getting back to normal life.  You don't just say we're going back to normal.  It smacks of the same fantastical thinking that Trump constantly espouses because he wants everyone to think the US is in great shape.  Just because you want it to be so don't make it so.  Follow the science.

If Atlas then was added to Trump's task force and replaced Fauci at the TV press conferences, he'd be a "tool" as well.

[Goose]

If Atlas had said that he'd be (1) wrong because we can control how many people get the virus as has been shown by many other countries,

Unfortunately what happens in other countries doesn't demonstrate that WE can get the virus under control. For one thing, we have Trump and Atlas :). We also have lots of people who just don't care about social distancing, masking, etc, and no political will (in general) to enforce such regulations. I know that that isn't what you mean here. Other countries have shown that it is possible to control the spread of the disease if certain behaviors are followed. Whether the USA can make those behaviors happen is still TBD. So far, not so good.

(2) simplistic because the "shutdown vs open-up" argument dismisses myriad responses in between, and (3) still unqualified to be a task force member.

Couldn't agree more. This false dichotomy has been literally killing us since the beginning of the epidemic.

Because he's wrong many more people will get sick, die or develop long-lasting issues, and our economy will be hurt much more than a correct response.

I am not sure Atlas makes any difference at all. He is wrong for sure, but he doesn't make the decisions. He does give Trump some (very limited) cover for the decisions Trump is making. I assume based on your previous statements that by a "correct" response you mean one that at least recognizes the problems created by unchecked spread of the virus. Unfortunately, there are many possible "correct" responses. Sweden has an approach many say is not "correct". I think "correct" is a strong yet somewhat ambiguous word to describe the desired situation, although I can't think of a better one ATM.

Controlling the virus is the answer to helping our economy and getting back to normal life.  You don't just say we're going back to normal.  It smacks of the same fantastical thinking that Trump constantly espouses because he wants everyone to think the US is in great shape.  Just because you want it to be so don't make it so.

It apparently does for Trump. Actually, the phenomenon is more common than one thinks Chamberlain thought he could do business with Hitler.  Granted, not quite apples and apples, but politicians almost never abandon a position even when it has been shown to be obviously wrong. Trump however appears to carry self-delusion to levels not seen in American politics before.

Follow the science.

I see this phrase used a lot, and I must admit it bothers me. There is an implication that science holds "the answer" to exactly what we need to do. Science provides an equation that is known to be 100% accurate, and all we need to do is enter the parameters and out pops a "perfect" answer. In fact, science can tell us a few things about the epidemic, but there are many more things it can't tell us yet (because they are still being determined) and there are many things regarding public policy that it can never tell us. Science isn't going to tell us to open nail salons but not Gyms. There are models that exist that can be useful, but the models really aren't "validated" yet because this is a new virus. The error bars in many areas are large. What "science" told us about asymptomatic spread four months ago is now almost assuredly wrong.
Science knows it's own limitations. Those people trying to follow the science often do not recognize or understand those limitations. In situations like this epidemic, science can be used to make predictions about the probable results of certain policies. In some cases, these predictions are pretty certain. In many more cases, the predictions depend on 1) factors about viral spread that we don't yet know and 2) human behavior in ways that science can't model well. YMMV.

[Goose]

If Atlas had said that he'd be (1) wrong because we can control how many people get the virus as has been shown by many other countries,

Unfortunately what happens in other countries doesn't demonstrate that WE can get the virus under control. For one thing, we have Trump and Atlas :). We also have lots of people who just don't care about social distancing, masking, etc, and no political will (in general) to enforce such regulations. I know that that isn't what you mean here. Other countries have shown that it is possible to control the spread of the disease if certain behaviors are followed. Whether the USA can make those behaviors happen is still TBD. So far, not so good.

(2) simplistic because the "shutdown vs open-up" argument dismisses myriad responses in between, and (3) still unqualified to be a task force member.

Couldn't agree more. This false dichotomy has been literally killing us since the beginning of the epidemic.

Because he's wrong many more people will get sick, die or develop long-lasting issues, and our economy will be hurt much more than a correct response.

I am not sure Atlas makes any difference at all. He is wrong for sure, but he doesn't make the decisions. He does give Trump some (very limited) cover for the decisions Trump is making. I assume based on your previous statements that by a "correct" response you mean one that at least recognizes the problems created by unchecked spread of the virus. Unfortunately, there are many possible "correct" responses. Sweden has an approach many say is not "correct". I think "correct" is a strong yet somewhat ambiguous word to describe the desired situation, although I can't think of a better one ATM.

Controlling the virus is the answer to helping our economy and getting back to normal life.  You don't just say we're going back to normal.  It smacks of the same fantastical thinking that Trump constantly espouses because he wants everyone to think the US is in great shape.  Just because you want it to be so don't make it so.

It apparently does for Trump. Actually, the phenomenon is more common than one thinks Chamberlain thought he could do business with Hitler.  Granted, not quite apples and apples, but politicians almost never abandon a position even when it has been shown to be obviously wrong. Trump however appears to carry self-delusion to levels not seen in American politics before.

Follow the science.

I see this phrase used a lot, and I must admit it bothers me. There is an implication that science holds "the answer" to exactly what we need to do. Science provides an equation that is known to be 100% accurate, and all we need to do is enter the parameters and out pops a "perfect" answer. In fact, science can tell us a few things about the epidemic, but there are many more things it can't tell us yet (because they are still being determined) and there are many things regarding public policy that it can never tell us. Science isn't going to tell us to open nail salons but not Gyms. There are models that exist that can be useful, but the models really aren't "validated" yet because this is a new virus. The error bars in many areas are large. What "science" told us about asymptomatic spread four months ago is now almost assuredly wrong.
Science knows it's own limitations. Those people trying to follow the science often do not recognize or understand those limitations. In situations like this epidemic, science can be used to make predictions about the probable results of certain policies. In some cases, these predictions are pretty certain. In many more cases, the predictions depend on 1) factors about viral spread that we don't yet know and 2) human behavior in ways that science can't model well. YMMV.

[DocSavage87]

Following the science (particularly as its conclusions shift with new data) does not preclude all other kinds of proper thinking.  It is necessary though not sufficient for an optimal response to the pandemic.  Science can be used to model what happens when 20+% of our country is not compliant with recommendations or even mandates.  We see that posting signs and even making fines will not prevent people from ignoring recommendations.  This is why there's room for heterogeneity in the response, e.g., implementation of the task force's reopening plan could be done at district and certainly state levels.  Some states like MA actually require 14 day quarantine for out-of-state visitors.  Even if it's not fully enforced it should lead to some incremental improvement in transmission across state lines.

Due to non-compliance and/or ignorance, the reality is that the US will be in slow/medium "simmer" mode unless it takes off in winter.  When states like TX or GA get hammered, there will be both state-wide as well as individual behavior changes that provide a negative feedback loop.  Unfortunately some of it is tied into socioeconomic differences since white-collar workers will be more able to self-isolate and do remote work than low income or retail workers.  Even in this bad scenario, it's unlikely that we all will get it because at least some highly paranoid, likely richer, and self-isolating groups in the US can limit their exposure.  Essentially some people in the US will be locked down in the social sense while still working remotely.  Then it's a question of timing on the vaccine and other factors like "herd immunity" within the non-compliant and sub-population required to work in high-risk areas.  If masks actually decrease severity of the disease based on size and location of inoculum, then even if the disease spreads among the compliant population we may see a drop in the IFR.

[DocSavage87]

Following the science (particularly as its conclusions shift with new data) does not preclude all other kinds of proper thinking.  It is necessary though not sufficient for an optimal response to the pandemic.  Science can be used to model what happens when 20+% of our country is not compliant with recommendations or even mandates.  We see that posting signs and even making fines will not prevent people from ignoring recommendations.  This is why there's room for heterogeneity in the response, e.g., implementation of the task force's reopening plan could be done at district and certainly state levels.  Some states like MA actually require 14 day quarantine for out-of-state visitors.  Even if it's not fully enforced it should lead to some incremental improvement in transmission across state lines.

Due to non-compliance and/or ignorance, the reality is that the US will be in slow/medium "simmer" mode unless it takes off in winter.  When states like TX or GA get hammered, there will be both state-wide as well as individual behavior changes that provide a negative feedback loop.  Unfortunately some of it is tied into socioeconomic differences since white-collar workers will be more able to self-isolate and do remote work than low income or retail workers.  Even in this bad scenario, it's unlikely that we all will get it because at least some highly paranoid, likely richer, and self-isolating groups in the US can limit their exposure.  Essentially some people in the US will be locked down in the social sense while still working remotely.  Then it's a question of timing on the vaccine and other factors like "herd immunity" within the non-compliant and sub-population required to work in high-risk areas.  If masks actually decrease severity of the disease based on size and location of inoculum, then even if the disease spreads among the compliant population we may see a drop in the IFR.

[slide]

I have known Lex personally for many years.  And while we disagree politically (and specifically about Atlas), I have never known him to argue in bad faith.
BC

+1 on this sentiment and agree with BC.  however, I do put an asterisk in the commentary when the topic includes the A's and the Dodgers.

[slide]

I have known Lex personally for many years.  And while we disagree politically (and specifically about Atlas), I have never known him to argue in bad faith.
BC

+1 on this sentiment and agree with BC.  however, I do put an asterisk in the commentary when the topic includes the A's and the Dodgers.

[terry]

in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.

I do not agree that "it becomes politics when you work for the government," and I do not agree that those who work for the government "needn't be fair." I believe that virtually all government functions should be performed in a fair, non-partisan way, and that government employees should act in the best interests of the public, not in the partisan interests of the president. 

For example, we have a right to expect non-partisan, non-political job performance from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the Weather Service, the Census, the Postal Service, the military, and other agencies. We have the right to expect "good government" and public service, not partisanship. I do not believe that just because they work for the government, they should be allowed to act in the president's partisan, political interests.

The same is true of the CDC, FDA, HHS, and other agencies and officials involved in responding to the pandemic. They should act based on public health considerations and the public interest, regardless of whether those actions are ideologically in line with the president's personal wishes.

Scott Atlas appears to be have been chosen based on ideological agreement with the president, not based on his competence in public health and infectious diseases. We have a right to expect that the pandemic response will be based on public health considerations, not the president's personal interests. We have a right to expect the pandemic response to be "fair," not partisan. Those handling the pandemic response should not act like lawyers representing a partisan client. They should act like representatives of the public acting in the public interest.

[terry]

in politics (and it becomes politics when you work for the government) it is common to present only one side of the story, the side you support. You can't lie, but you needn't be "fair". It is also an approach that lawyers take all the time. It is their job to represent their client. Pointing out things that help the other side not only isn't their job, it is to be avoided.
These are the reasons that political discussions in public are not good places to hash out scientific truths. You are only going to get one side from the Administration, whoever that is at the time. It may be the side you happen agree with, but that doesn't make it fair or complete.

I do not agree that "it becomes politics when you work for the government," and I do not agree that those who work for the government "needn't be fair." I believe that virtually all government functions should be performed in a fair, non-partisan way, and that government employees should act in the best interests of the public, not in the partisan interests of the president. 

For example, we have a right to expect non-partisan, non-political job performance from the Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the Weather Service, the Census, the Postal Service, the military, and other agencies. We have the right to expect "good government" and public service, not partisanship. I do not believe that just because they work for the government, they should be allowed to act in the president's partisan, political interests.

The same is true of the CDC, FDA, HHS, and other agencies and officials involved in responding to the pandemic. They should act based on public health considerations and the public interest, regardless of whether those actions are ideologically in line with the president's personal wishes.

Scott Atlas appears to be have been chosen based on ideological agreement with the president, not based on his competence in public health and infectious diseases. We have a right to expect that the pandemic response will be based on public health considerations, not the president's personal interests. We have a right to expect the pandemic response to be "fair," not partisan. Those handling the pandemic response should not act like lawyers representing a partisan client. They should act like representatives of the public acting in the public interest.