[Genuine Realist]

I think worth its own thread.

(1) FWIW, the often quoted example of the limitation of free speech by analogy to yelling fire in a crowded theatre, is taken from an Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. opinion in a 1919 case, Schenck v. United States, in upholding the conviction o a war protester handing out anti-war material in front of a draft center. His free speech activity was considered too dangerous to tolerate. Like that outcome? (The more you learn of the actual jurisprudence of Oliver Wendell Holmes - the author of Buck v. Bell, 1927, the eugenics case - the less you like him. He shares that dubious distinction with Woodrow Wilson, in that familiarity breeds increasing contempt.)

(2) Almost every attitude most college educated Americans take for granted as truistic, particularly on racial issues, was at one time considered highly dangerous, toxic speech.

(3) Getting to the particular case of Atlas, the illusion is that censoring his speech would delete these ideas. Not so - what would happen is that they would retreat into inchoate conspiracism rumors, dark whispers, all the stuff we know and love, somewhat akin to the anti-vaxxers. Of course you can't eliminate that altogether. But public discussion serves as a valuable disinfectant. I'm not the first to use that metaphoir 

(4) Also, even extreme ideas can serve as pushback against bureaucratic overkill. It forces the powers-that-be to reexamine and  justify. Even when Fox News is at its worst, it performs one valuable service - it forces the other elements of the MSN to rebut it - and every once in a while, that turns out not to be so easy. It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I remember some of the controversy about closing golf courses last spring. I'm not a golfer, but that seemed to me to be absurd overkill - obviously, you can play an open-air game (not sport) in a socially distanced manner. (Tennis, too.) It may have been bureaucratic thoughtlessness - or, worse, it might have been reverse racism. Since we have to ban inner city sports like basketball, we have to ban country club sports like golf, lest we be accused of facilitating White privilege (even though the distinction lies in the manner of play). I wonder how many other blanket prohibitions could have been tweaked here and there, to save one job on Monday, and another on Tuesday. Reaction to that sort of nonsense is appropriate, and often begins with ludicrously overstated critiques,

If you don't get the pushback, you do not have the bureaucracy thinking - and health bureaucracy can be as stolid and inflexible as any other. Lock 'em all down.

(5) To state the obvious, the First Amendment does not guarantee Atlas' right to speak, any more than any other private citizen's. But it does codify the basic openness that we value in this society. 

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

[Genuine Realist]

I think worth its own thread.

(1) FWIW, the often quoted example of the limitation of free speech by analogy to yelling fire in a crowded theatre, is taken from an Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. opinion in a 1919 case, Schenck v. United States, in upholding the conviction o a war protester handing out anti-war material in front of a draft center. His free speech activity was considered too dangerous to tolerate. Like that outcome? (The more you learn of the actual jurisprudence of Oliver Wendell Holmes - the author of Buck v. Bell, 1927, the eugenics case - the less you like him. He shares that dubious distinction with Woodrow Wilson, in that familiarity breeds increasing contempt.)

(2) Almost every attitude most college educated Americans take for granted as truistic, particularly on racial issues, was at one time considered highly dangerous, toxic speech.

(3) Getting to the particular case of Atlas, the illusion is that censoring his speech would delete these ideas. Not so - what would happen is that they would retreat into inchoate conspiracism rumors, dark whispers, all the stuff we know and love, somewhat akin to the anti-vaxxers. Of course you can't eliminate that altogether. But public discussion serves as a valuable disinfectant. I'm not the first to use that metaphoir 

(4) Also, even extreme ideas can serve as pushback against bureaucratic overkill. It forces the powers-that-be to reexamine and  justify. Even when Fox News is at its worst, it performs one valuable service - it forces the other elements of the MSN to rebut it - and every once in a while, that turns out not to be so easy. It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I remember some of the controversy about closing golf courses last spring. I'm not a golfer, but that seemed to me to be absurd overkill - obviously, you can play an open-air game (not sport) in a socially distanced manner. (Tennis, too.) It may have been bureaucratic thoughtlessness - or, worse, it might have been reverse racism. Since we have to ban inner city sports like basketball, we have to ban country club sports like golf, lest we be accused of facilitating White privilege (even though the distinction lies in the manner of play). I wonder how many other blanket prohibitions could have been tweaked here and there, to save one job on Monday, and another on Tuesday. Reaction to that sort of nonsense is appropriate, and often begins with ludicrously overstated critiques,

If you don't get the pushback, you do not have the bureaucracy thinking - and health bureaucracy can be as stolid and inflexible as any other. Lock 'em all down.

(5) To state the obvious, the First Amendment does not guarantee Atlas' right to speak, any more than any other private citizen's. But it does codify the basic openness that we value in this society. 

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

[BostonCard]

Ken White, who goes by @popehat on Twitter, is a Stanford guy who has a first amendment legal practice and has a good podcast on freedom of speech (the Make no Law).  X is like "yelling 'fire' in a theater" is a pet peeve of his, for good reason.

https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/

As much as I don't agree with Atlas' ideas, I haven't otherwise engaged in that thread because the premise that he ought to be fired from a position whose tenet is protecting academic freedom is ridiculous.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ken White, who goes by @popehat on Twitter, is a Stanford guy who has a first amendment legal practice and has a good podcast on freedom of speech (the Make no Law).  X is like "yelling 'fire' in a theater" is a pet peeve of his, for good reason.

https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/

As much as I don't agree with Atlas' ideas, I haven't otherwise engaged in that thread because the premise that he ought to be fired from a position whose tenet is protecting academic freedom is ridiculous.

BC

[Goose]

It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I agree with almost all of what you said, except the above. First of all, I do not agree that "nary a discouraging word was heard". Consider the pictures from the Tet Offensive and repeat your statement. The big difference then was that there was a clear, distinct dichotomy between news programs and editorial programs. While there was undoubtedly some bias in news reporting, it was at least attempted to minimize it. I agree that today we have the potential to get much better news reporting because there are more people reporting it. Unfortunately that reporting gets so mixed in with talking heads reporting what they believe/hope/fear is true along with what they can show is true that confusion reigns. The "news" programs are treated like entertainment programs and compete for ratings based on how many people can be induced to watch. The bare facts may not do that, so let's add in some speculation and sensationalize what we do know so that people will watch.

If you think there was an "unthinking consensus", you obviously didn't work with the Goldwater campaign.

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

Exactly. That is the only way these ideas can be defeated, and if one can't rebut an idea, maybe it deserves some consideration after all.

[Goose]

It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I agree with almost all of what you said, except the above. First of all, I do not agree that "nary a discouraging word was heard". Consider the pictures from the Tet Offensive and repeat your statement. The big difference then was that there was a clear, distinct dichotomy between news programs and editorial programs. While there was undoubtedly some bias in news reporting, it was at least attempted to minimize it. I agree that today we have the potential to get much better news reporting because there are more people reporting it. Unfortunately that reporting gets so mixed in with talking heads reporting what they believe/hope/fear is true along with what they can show is true that confusion reigns. The "news" programs are treated like entertainment programs and compete for ratings based on how many people can be induced to watch. The bare facts may not do that, so let's add in some speculation and sensationalize what we do know so that people will watch.

If you think there was an "unthinking consensus", you obviously didn't work with the Goldwater campaign.

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

Exactly. That is the only way these ideas can be defeated, and if one can't rebut an idea, maybe it deserves some consideration after all.

[DocSavage87]

To me it's not about his right to speak.  It's his right to fill a paid position that would be better served by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.  Committees make decisions all the time about who gets an academic slot or who gets promoted based on the quality of their work.  Atlas does crap work.  He cherry picks confirmation points and dismisses pretty legit arguments from academics much more expert than him.  He's already made predictions that have been so wrong it's kind of ridiculous.  He continues to advance policy that has glaring holes.  I guess you could make a case that his primary expertise is healthcare policy with respect to new neuroimaging technology, but he's not doing that AFAIK anymore.  So why continue to support shoddy work at the university?

[DocSavage87]

To me it's not about his right to speak.  It's his right to fill a paid position that would be better served by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.  Committees make decisions all the time about who gets an academic slot or who gets promoted based on the quality of their work.  Atlas does crap work.  He cherry picks confirmation points and dismisses pretty legit arguments from academics much more expert than him.  He's already made predictions that have been so wrong it's kind of ridiculous.  He continues to advance policy that has glaring holes.  I guess you could make a case that his primary expertise is healthcare policy with respect to new neuroimaging technology, but he's not doing that AFAIK anymore.  So why continue to support shoddy work at the university?

[Goose]

To me it's not about his right to speak.  It's his right to fill a paid position that would be better served by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.  Committees make decisions all the time about who gets an academic slot or who gets promoted based on the quality of their work.  Atlas does crap work.  He cherry picks confirmation points and dismisses pretty legit arguments from academics much more expert than him.  He's already made predictions that have been so wrong it's kind of ridiculous.  He continues to advance policy that has glaring holes.  I guess you could make a case that his primary expertise is healthcare policy with respect to new neuroimaging technology, but he's not doing that AFAIK anymore.  So why continue to support shoddy work at the university?

I would agree with your argument about "shoddy work" if it was applied uniformly. However, as I am sure everybody on this site knows there are many Stanford professors who haven't done anything for years. The Hoover Institute is somewhat different, in that it isn't real clear (at least to me) what is expected of someone with Atlas's job. Under those conditions, is his work worse than his peers? I tend to doubt it, but I can be convinced.

[Goose]

To me it's not about his right to speak.  It's his right to fill a paid position that would be better served by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.  Committees make decisions all the time about who gets an academic slot or who gets promoted based on the quality of their work.  Atlas does crap work.  He cherry picks confirmation points and dismisses pretty legit arguments from academics much more expert than him.  He's already made predictions that have been so wrong it's kind of ridiculous.  He continues to advance policy that has glaring holes.  I guess you could make a case that his primary expertise is healthcare policy with respect to new neuroimaging technology, but he's not doing that AFAIK anymore.  So why continue to support shoddy work at the university?

I would agree with your argument about "shoddy work" if it was applied uniformly. However, as I am sure everybody on this site knows there are many Stanford professors who haven't done anything for years. The Hoover Institute is somewhat different, in that it isn't real clear (at least to me) what is expected of someone with Atlas's job. Under those conditions, is his work worse than his peers? I tend to doubt it, but I can be convinced.

[lex24]

Much bigger issue is twitter, Facebook etc. They have unbelievable power.  What they decide to flag or ban- particularly in the realm of political speech - has enormous implications.

---

It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I agree with almost all of what you said, except the above. First of all, I do not agree that "nary a discouraging word was heard". Consider the pictures from the Tet Offensive and repeat your statement. The big difference then was that there was a clear, distinct dichotomy between news programs and editorial programs. While there was undoubtedly some bias in news reporting, it was at least attempted to minimize it. I agree that today we have the potential to get much better news reporting because there are more people reporting it. Unfortunately that reporting gets so mixed in with talking heads reporting what they believe/hope/fear is true along with what they can show is true that confusion reigns. The "news" programs are treated like entertainment programs and compete for ratings based on how many people can be induced to watch. The bare facts may not do that, so let's add in some speculation and sensationalize what we do know so that people will watch.

If you think there was an "unthinking consensus", you obviously didn't work with the Goldwater campaign.

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

Exactly. That is the only way these ideas can be defeated, and if one can't rebut an idea, maybe it deserves some consideration after all.

Interesting younuse TET as an example, given the media got it so wrong.

[lex24]

Much bigger issue is twitter, Facebook etc. They have unbelievable power.  What they decide to flag or ban- particularly in the realm of political speech - has enormous implications.

---

It would be too political to go back 40 or 50 years to when there were only three networks, every one got their news from Walter Cronkite, and nary a discouraging word was heard. Suffice it to say that today's hurly burly is infinitely better. I much prefer no consensus, to a bland unthinking one.

I agree with almost all of what you said, except the above. First of all, I do not agree that "nary a discouraging word was heard". Consider the pictures from the Tet Offensive and repeat your statement. The big difference then was that there was a clear, distinct dichotomy between news programs and editorial programs. While there was undoubtedly some bias in news reporting, it was at least attempted to minimize it. I agree that today we have the potential to get much better news reporting because there are more people reporting it. Unfortunately that reporting gets so mixed in with talking heads reporting what they believe/hope/fear is true along with what they can show is true that confusion reigns. The "news" programs are treated like entertainment programs and compete for ratings based on how many people can be induced to watch. The bare facts may not do that, so let's add in some speculation and sensationalize what we do know so that people will watch.

If you think there was an "unthinking consensus", you obviously didn't work with the Goldwater campaign.

And to end where I began, ANY speech with which you disagree can be characterized as too dangerous to tolerate. The game's as old as the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration. But in fact very little is. You disarm it by rebutting it, not by prohibiting it.

Exactly. That is the only way these ideas can be defeated, and if one can't rebut an idea, maybe it deserves some consideration after all.

Interesting younuse TET as an example, given the media got it so wrong.

[OutsiderFan]

Let's all celebrate Scott Atlas given a platform for his speech.  

He's making wild assumptions not backed by anything other than his own ass, which is perfect for Fox News. There are many high risk people who are avoiding others like the plague, out of choice. Sure they'd like to be with loved ones, but we're talking about missing one holiday to ensure they and others see more in the future. Atlas claiming that many people are having their last Thanksgiving may be true, but how the hell does he know who such people are, and how many more will have their last one as a product of following his stupid advice?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1328502026381176832[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

Let's all celebrate Scott Atlas given a platform for his speech.  

He's making wild assumptions not backed by anything other than his own ass, which is perfect for Fox News. There are many high risk people who are avoiding others like the plague, out of choice. Sure they'd like to be with loved ones, but we're talking about missing one holiday to ensure they and others see more in the future. Atlas claiming that many people are having their last Thanksgiving may be true, but how the hell does he know who such people are, and how many more will have their last one as a product of following his stupid advice?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1328502026381176832[/tweet]

[DocSavage87]

Let's all celebrate Scott Atlas given a platform for his speech.  

He's making wild assumptions not backed by anything other than his own ass, which is perfect for Fox News. There are many high risk people who are avoiding others like the plague, out of choice. Sure they'd like to be with loved ones, but we're talking about missing one holiday to ensure they and others see more in the future. Atlas claiming that many people are having their last Thanksgiving may be true, but how the hell does he know who such people are, and how many more will have their last one as a product of following his stupid advice?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1328502026381176832[/tweet]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

[DocSavage87]

Let's all celebrate Scott Atlas given a platform for his speech.  

He's making wild assumptions not backed by anything other than his own ass, which is perfect for Fox News. There are many high risk people who are avoiding others like the plague, out of choice. Sure they'd like to be with loved ones, but we're talking about missing one holiday to ensure they and others see more in the future. Atlas claiming that many people are having their last Thanksgiving may be true, but how the hell does he know who such people are, and how many more will have their last one as a product of following his stupid advice?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1328502026381176832[/tweet]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

[oregontim]

Thanks GR for the thread. It's worth the focus, IMO.

This is not a first amendment issue. We citizens and voters get to — no, ought to — object when an advisor to the president of the USA advises the public against taking care of each other during the worst pandemic in modern history, much less to "rise up" against their state government. He's on the White House payroll. He should shut the eff up. And we should say so. And petition for his dismissal.

I'm curious about the actual law related to criminal negligence, but I claim no expertise beyond having seen far too many of the 456 episodes of Law and Order. If TV were real, Jack McCoy would be preparing a case as we speak. OTOH, if TV were real, Jed Bartlett or Matt Santos would be president, and none of the disastrous Trojan horse attack on the US from inside the White House would have happened.

Aside from the above, I'm squeamish about riding him out of Stanford or Hoover on a rail. If we throw out every Scott Atlas we might accidentally throw out tomorrow's Galileo in the shuffle. I would follow Goose's suggestion, from that earlier thread, that he meet the criteria of academic rigor that the Stanford/Hoover positions require. The underlying truth is that we can't surgically remove stupidity and malice from public discourse without putting somebody in charge of deciding what is stupidity and malice.

[oregontim]

Thanks GR for the thread. It's worth the focus, IMO.

This is not a first amendment issue. We citizens and voters get to — no, ought to — object when an advisor to the president of the USA advises the public against taking care of each other during the worst pandemic in modern history, much less to "rise up" against their state government. He's on the White House payroll. He should shut the eff up. And we should say so. And petition for his dismissal.

I'm curious about the actual law related to criminal negligence, but I claim no expertise beyond having seen far too many of the 456 episodes of Law and Order. If TV were real, Jack McCoy would be preparing a case as we speak. OTOH, if TV were real, Jed Bartlett or Matt Santos would be president, and none of the disastrous Trojan horse attack on the US from inside the White House would have happened.

Aside from the above, I'm squeamish about riding him out of Stanford or Hoover on a rail. If we throw out every Scott Atlas we might accidentally throw out tomorrow's Galileo in the shuffle. I would follow Goose's suggestion, from that earlier thread, that he meet the criteria of academic rigor that the Stanford/Hoover positions require. The underlying truth is that we can't surgically remove stupidity and malice from public discourse without putting somebody in charge of deciding what is stupidity and malice.

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[DocSavage87]

Atlas adheres to a very minority viewpoint.  Sweden may be well respected as a country, but their response to COVID-19 was definitely not respected by most other experts.  Even within their country they have a vocal group of scientists and doctors, and we're reading how they've been under attack and fired similar to what we are talking about in this thread.  There are also large differences between Sweden and US including poverty level, obesity, access to medical care, and universal paid sick leave that was buttressed for COVID-19, so symptomatic would stay home.  So both the morbidity/mortality and simple spread checks are different between the two countries.

Sweden does things differently than Atlas would have us do.  They've always prevented mass gatherings (none over 50) while US has been holding football games with fans swarming fields.  Atlas is on the air now talking about not isolating granny from Thanksgiving while Sweden banned gatherings of more than 8 people.  So Atlas isn't even internally consistent since he's been saying how he wants the vulnerable protected yet has no plan of how to do so AFAIK.  Despite Sweden's outsized death rate, they still are no where near herd immunity and so that aspect was a bust.

That Atlas initially held a minority viewpoint is one thing.  That the paper he based his original opinions on were crap -- well that's actually an academic rigor thing.  The problem is his inflexibility in re-examining his viewpoint after the accumulation of data and also taking into account what's actually happening.  He should make things obvious by flying down to El Paso, stand next to the ten morgue trucks, and loudly declare that any attempt by the judge there to restrict personal freedoms is stupid.

People are fired or not renewed in academia all the time and for far less reasons.  My favorite Computer Science prof at Stanford was beloved by hundreds of students (undergrads/grads) and was let go, not because he didn't do great work, but because he didn't do enough research and did too much teaching.  So I'm far less sympathetic about feeling the need to protect Atlas's position given how he's actually a poor academic.

[DocSavage87]

Atlas adheres to a very minority viewpoint.  Sweden may be well respected as a country, but their response to COVID-19 was definitely not respected by most other experts.  Even within their country they have a vocal group of scientists and doctors, and we're reading how they've been under attack and fired similar to what we are talking about in this thread.  There are also large differences between Sweden and US including poverty level, obesity, access to medical care, and universal paid sick leave that was buttressed for COVID-19, so symptomatic would stay home.  So both the morbidity/mortality and simple spread checks are different between the two countries.

Sweden does things differently than Atlas would have us do.  They've always prevented mass gatherings (none over 50) while US has been holding football games with fans swarming fields.  Atlas is on the air now talking about not isolating granny from Thanksgiving while Sweden banned gatherings of more than 8 people.  So Atlas isn't even internally consistent since he's been saying how he wants the vulnerable protected yet has no plan of how to do so AFAIK.  Despite Sweden's outsized death rate, they still are no where near herd immunity and so that aspect was a bust.

That Atlas initially held a minority viewpoint is one thing.  That the paper he based his original opinions on were crap -- well that's actually an academic rigor thing.  The problem is his inflexibility in re-examining his viewpoint after the accumulation of data and also taking into account what's actually happening.  He should make things obvious by flying down to El Paso, stand next to the ten morgue trucks, and loudly declare that any attempt by the judge there to restrict personal freedoms is stupid.

People are fired or not renewed in academia all the time and for far less reasons.  My favorite Computer Science prof at Stanford was beloved by hundreds of students (undergrads/grads) and was let go, not because he didn't do great work, but because he didn't do enough research and did too much teaching.  So I'm far less sympathetic about feeling the need to protect Atlas's position given how he's actually a poor academic.

[Genuine Realist]

Let's all celebrate Scott Atlas given a platform for his speech.  

He's making wild assumptions not backed by anything other than his own ass, which is perfect for Fox News. There are many high risk people who are avoiding others like the plague, out of choice. Sure they'd like to be with loved ones, but we're talking about missing one holiday to ensure they and others see more in the future. Atlas claiming that many people are having their last Thanksgiving may be true, but how the hell does he know who such people are, and how many more will have their last one as a product of following his stupid advice?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1328502026381176832[/tweet]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

Or maybe the the elderly person will miss a visit that would have come off swimmingly and sink further into an end-of-life depression that could have been avoided.

The point that myself, Mick, teejers, and others try to make from time to time is that there are other considerations in play here - the education of children, cohesion of families, and so forth. They are not as easily quantifiable as case rates, hospitalizations, deaths, and so on, but they exist, and the damage done to them is just as real.

In some ways, the tunnel vision of some medicos reminds me of the 'body counts' from the old Vietnamese War days of the 60's. It was an easy quantification of the war's 'success' or failure, and you may recall the Best and Brightest (in Halberstam's phrase) fell for it. It's easy here to push for some draconian lock down, celebrate because the case rate is going down, and ignore the rising social anxiety, with the inevitable rise in family distress, maybe child and spousal abuse, depression and so on. You will not accept those as consequences of the over harsh policy, but they are.

A balanced approach isn't going to please anyone. You'll have more disease than you'd like if everyone was in lockdown, and more social distress than if no one was. But that's in the nature of balance. Right now, I think a more aggressive lockdown seems appropriate because of the spike. But even now, push back is a good thing, a very good thing - and, by the way, an essential hallmark of a free society.

[Genuine Realist]

Let's all celebrate Scott Atlas given a platform for his speech.  

He's making wild assumptions not backed by anything other than his own ass, which is perfect for Fox News. There are many high risk people who are avoiding others like the plague, out of choice. Sure they'd like to be with loved ones, but we're talking about missing one holiday to ensure they and others see more in the future. Atlas claiming that many people are having their last Thanksgiving may be true, but how the hell does he know who such people are, and how many more will have their last one as a product of following his stupid advice?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1328502026381176832[/tweet]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

Or maybe the the elderly person will miss a visit that would have come off swimmingly and sink further into an end-of-life depression that could have been avoided.

The point that myself, Mick, teejers, and others try to make from time to time is that there are other considerations in play here - the education of children, cohesion of families, and so forth. They are not as easily quantifiable as case rates, hospitalizations, deaths, and so on, but they exist, and the damage done to them is just as real.

In some ways, the tunnel vision of some medicos reminds me of the 'body counts' from the old Vietnamese War days of the 60's. It was an easy quantification of the war's 'success' or failure, and you may recall the Best and Brightest (in Halberstam's phrase) fell for it. It's easy here to push for some draconian lock down, celebrate because the case rate is going down, and ignore the rising social anxiety, with the inevitable rise in family distress, maybe child and spousal abuse, depression and so on. You will not accept those as consequences of the over harsh policy, but they are.

A balanced approach isn't going to please anyone. You'll have more disease than you'd like if everyone was in lockdown, and more social distress than if no one was. But that's in the nature of balance. Right now, I think a more aggressive lockdown seems appropriate because of the spike. But even now, push back is a good thing, a very good thing - and, by the way, an essential hallmark of a free society.

[BostonCard]

The way billets at Stanford (the equivalent of FTEs) work is super duper complicated, and differs for different tracks.  I have no idea whether the Hoover institution even uses the Stanford's appointment system.  I see that Hoover fellows are appointed for renewable five-year terms.  I have no issues if at the end of Atlas' five-year term his scholarship is reviewed, and if it falls short of Hoover's criteria for renewal, he is not re-appointed.  I do take issue with calls for him to be summarily dismissed for his views.

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

BC

[BostonCard]

The way billets at Stanford (the equivalent of FTEs) work is super duper complicated, and differs for different tracks.  I have no idea whether the Hoover institution even uses the Stanford's appointment system.  I see that Hoover fellows are appointed for renewable five-year terms.  I have no issues if at the end of Atlas' five-year term his scholarship is reviewed, and if it falls short of Hoover's criteria for renewal, he is not re-appointed.  I do take issue with calls for him to be summarily dismissed for his views.

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

BC

[Goose]

Interesting you use TET as an example, given the media got it so wrong.

Not an accident. I chose it to specifically debunk the idea that at that time the press only reported the "feel good company line". Tet is an example of the press misreporting something as "gloom and doom", partly in response to what they regarded as being misled by MACV and similar organizations. The press "bias" was caused at least in part by government creating an adversarial relationship with the press and the inability of the press to rise above their bias, search out, and report the "truth". Kind of like today, IMHO.

[Goose]

Interesting you use TET as an example, given the media got it so wrong.

Not an accident. I chose it to specifically debunk the idea that at that time the press only reported the "feel good company line". Tet is an example of the press misreporting something as "gloom and doom", partly in response to what they regarded as being misled by MACV and similar organizations. The press "bias" was caused at least in part by government creating an adversarial relationship with the press and the inability of the press to rise above their bias, search out, and report the "truth". Kind of like today, IMHO.

[DocSavage87]

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

I think the underlying mechanism of disease (and therefore the main targets for therapy) is a case where we need to be very cautious.  I'm not opposed to active funding of alternate (devil's advocate) research as long as the scientists are rigorous and not quacks.  However, these examples should not be used to dismiss evidence of severity of a pandemic, which is much easier to "know" based on things like death counts, or the potential for morbidity based on systemic effects not present in the same degree.

What is considered state-of-art in medicine tends to be very conservative, and I very much enjoyed my time working with neurosurgeons who tend to be much less cautious in embracing and financing new technology.  Medical policy likewise tends to be very conservative.  Which is why Atlas's promotion of very minority viewpoints at an extremely large scale is more striking.  It's as if we mandated taking antibiotics for ulcers before we had Marshall and Warren's research, let alone confirmatory investigations on their results.

[DocSavage87]

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

I think the underlying mechanism of disease (and therefore the main targets for therapy) is a case where we need to be very cautious.  I'm not opposed to active funding of alternate (devil's advocate) research as long as the scientists are rigorous and not quacks.  However, these examples should not be used to dismiss evidence of severity of a pandemic, which is much easier to "know" based on things like death counts, or the potential for morbidity based on systemic effects not present in the same degree.

What is considered state-of-art in medicine tends to be very conservative, and I very much enjoyed my time working with neurosurgeons who tend to be much less cautious in embracing and financing new technology.  Medical policy likewise tends to be very conservative.  Which is why Atlas's promotion of very minority viewpoints at an extremely large scale is more striking.  It's as if we mandated taking antibiotics for ulcers before we had Marshall and Warren's research, let alone confirmatory investigations on their results.

[teejers1]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

Or maybe the the elderly person will miss a visit that would have come off swimmingly and sink further into an end-of-life depression that could have been avoided.

It's easy here to push for some draconian lock down, celebrate because the case rate is going down, and ignore the rising social anxiety, with the inevitable rise in family distress, maybe child and spousal abuse, depression and so on. You will not accept those as consequences of the over harsh policy, but they are.

A balanced approach isn't going to please anyone. You'll have more disease than you'd like if everyone was in lockdown, and more social distress than if no one was. But that's in the nature of balance. Right now, I think a more aggressive lockdown seems appropriate because of the spike. But even now, push back is a good thing, a very good thing - and, by the way, an essential hallmark of a free society.

I think everyone here "gets" the tradeoffs - they just prioritize them differently.  That's to be expected.

As for Atlas, it's not a First Amendment issue for Stanford, a private university (though I think Stanford gets enough federal $$ that an argument could be made that it should apply - heck, maybe there is already authority out there to that effect).  But I think it valid to have scholarly criteria for those on the university payroll to at least attempt to adhere to, and if you fail, then you're subject to discipline.  I realize that the devil is in the details - there is a great possibility for mischief/speech restriction in that structure.  But in theory it could (and you like to think, would) work.  Hoover Institute may have its own criteria . . . and that's probably okay . . . to a degree.  But given the close ties to the university, it's fair that Stanford has some hand in those factors.

BTW, Lex hit on the most interesting First Amendment issue that will be with us for a while:  whether Facebook, Twitter, and IG platforms should be subject to the First Amendment.  I think there is a decent chance that ultimately they will be, even though efforts to date have failed.   Those platforms now control (or are the springboard) for the majority of speech going on in this country.  Will be interesting to see how "government" gets inserted into those entities for First Amendment applicability purposes . . .

[teejers1]

Well, he's right for a number of elderly who listen to him, because it may well be their last Thanksgiving when junior brings home COVID-19 from the university :/

Or maybe the the elderly person will miss a visit that would have come off swimmingly and sink further into an end-of-life depression that could have been avoided.

It's easy here to push for some draconian lock down, celebrate because the case rate is going down, and ignore the rising social anxiety, with the inevitable rise in family distress, maybe child and spousal abuse, depression and so on. You will not accept those as consequences of the over harsh policy, but they are.

A balanced approach isn't going to please anyone. You'll have more disease than you'd like if everyone was in lockdown, and more social distress than if no one was. But that's in the nature of balance. Right now, I think a more aggressive lockdown seems appropriate because of the spike. But even now, push back is a good thing, a very good thing - and, by the way, an essential hallmark of a free society.

I think everyone here "gets" the tradeoffs - they just prioritize them differently.  That's to be expected.

As for Atlas, it's not a First Amendment issue for Stanford, a private university (though I think Stanford gets enough federal $$ that an argument could be made that it should apply - heck, maybe there is already authority out there to that effect).  But I think it valid to have scholarly criteria for those on the university payroll to at least attempt to adhere to, and if you fail, then you're subject to discipline.  I realize that the devil is in the details - there is a great possibility for mischief/speech restriction in that structure.  But in theory it could (and you like to think, would) work.  Hoover Institute may have its own criteria . . . and that's probably okay . . . to a degree.  But given the close ties to the university, it's fair that Stanford has some hand in those factors.

BTW, Lex hit on the most interesting First Amendment issue that will be with us for a while:  whether Facebook, Twitter, and IG platforms should be subject to the First Amendment.  I think there is a decent chance that ultimately they will be, even though efforts to date have failed.   Those platforms now control (or are the springboard) for the majority of speech going on in this country.  Will be interesting to see how "government" gets inserted into those entities for First Amendment applicability purposes . . .

[oregontim]

BTW, Lex hit on the most interesting First Amendment issue that will be with us for a while:  whether Facebook, Twitter, and IG platforms should be subject to the First Amendment.  I think there is a decent chance that ultimately they will be, even though efforts to date have failed.   Those platforms now control (or are the springboard) for the majority of speech going on in this country.  Will be interesting to see how "government" gets inserted into those entities for First Amendment applicability purposes . . .

I agree with Teejers and Lex on the importance of this new problem, and the lack of any obvious solution so far.

1. The real problem isn't free speech. We're talking about Facebook and Twitter here. They are being forced to play referee but they don't want to; they do it poorly; and they are private, not government. They don't want to be censors and are trying not to. So not only does the first amendment not apply ... it also just confuses the real issues.
   
2. The worst problem posed by leading social media is not free speech but fake speech. Money and ideologues creating a fake word of mouth. Word of mouth, meaning a friend's recommendations, is very powerful in the way we humans think and decide things. Related power is that of opinion leader, or, the new fashionable word, the "influencers." Social media harnesses those special human power tools and offers the power of some kind of enormously amplified word of mouth that is essentially fake word of mouth, as in millions of dollars spent via bots and scripts and such, and posting farms, distorting public opinion with a tsunami of fake opinion.
   
3. Let me offer a specific example: I can take my opinion from this forum and post it on Facebook as me. No big deals. My Facebook friends can see it. But — and here's the problem — I can also pay Facebook unlimited sums of money to put me and my opinion in front of millions and even billions (if I pay enough) of people. So I can spread, say, false claims of election fraud, as much as I can afford to pay.
   
4. Here's another example: Google "Facebook accounts for sale" and you'll see competing vendors selling thousands of fake Facebook accounts for small fees, $29, $39, and up. So if I'm competent at some scripting language I can orchestrate thousands of fake people that seem to all the world like real people. Think of the Mickey Mouse sorcerer in the Disney version of the Sorcerer's apprentice.
   

Social media has had substantial impact on the decline and fall of truth in the 21st century. Give me the right budget and skills I can overwhelm real truth with anything I want to sell. Or generate death threats against Fauci, or undermine an election. Or undermine the wearing of masks during a pandemic. I can be a foreign government and churn up violence and division on both sides, building fake identities of trumped-up BLM, Antifa, and proud boys. I can use fake word of mouth on both extremes to make everybody angrier and more convinced of their righteousness and their place in the "right" crowd.

This is a brobdingnagian problem on which the first amendment has nothing to say. Can we, as a society, regulate all this? How? Do we turn these private sector tech companies into the arbiters of truth?

I have two small suggestions, FWIW ... steps in the right direction:

1. Make social media platforms every last paid-for post as a paid-for post. Make that law. Just like the newspapers set aside the fake news infomercials with banners top and bottom that say "paid advertising."
   
2. Make social media platforms accountable for policing the activities of fake accounts, scripts, and bots. They can do that. They don't want to because they make money on fake accounts and bots and scripts. Make that law and punish them for failure.
   

[oregontim]

BTW, Lex hit on the most interesting First Amendment issue that will be with us for a while:  whether Facebook, Twitter, and IG platforms should be subject to the First Amendment.  I think there is a decent chance that ultimately they will be, even though efforts to date have failed.   Those platforms now control (or are the springboard) for the majority of speech going on in this country.  Will be interesting to see how "government" gets inserted into those entities for First Amendment applicability purposes . . .

I agree with Teejers and Lex on the importance of this new problem, and the lack of any obvious solution so far.

1. The real problem isn't free speech. We're talking about Facebook and Twitter here. They are being forced to play referee but they don't want to; they do it poorly; and they are private, not government. They don't want to be censors and are trying not to. So not only does the first amendment not apply ... it also just confuses the real issues.
   
2. The worst problem posed by leading social media is not free speech but fake speech. Money and ideologues creating a fake word of mouth. Word of mouth, meaning a friend's recommendations, is very powerful in the way we humans think and decide things. Related power is that of opinion leader, or, the new fashionable word, the "influencers." Social media harnesses those special human power tools and offers the power of some kind of enormously amplified word of mouth that is essentially fake word of mouth, as in millions of dollars spent via bots and scripts and such, and posting farms, distorting public opinion with a tsunami of fake opinion.
   
3. Let me offer a specific example: I can take my opinion from this forum and post it on Facebook as me. No big deals. My Facebook friends can see it. But — and here's the problem — I can also pay Facebook unlimited sums of money to put me and my opinion in front of millions and even billions (if I pay enough) of people. So I can spread, say, false claims of election fraud, as much as I can afford to pay.
   
4. Here's another example: Google "Facebook accounts for sale" and you'll see competing vendors selling thousands of fake Facebook accounts for small fees, $29, $39, and up. So if I'm competent at some scripting language I can orchestrate thousands of fake people that seem to all the world like real people. Think of the Mickey Mouse sorcerer in the Disney version of the Sorcerer's apprentice.
   

Social media has had substantial impact on the decline and fall of truth in the 21st century. Give me the right budget and skills I can overwhelm real truth with anything I want to sell. Or generate death threats against Fauci, or undermine an election. Or undermine the wearing of masks during a pandemic. I can be a foreign government and churn up violence and division on both sides, building fake identities of trumped-up BLM, Antifa, and proud boys. I can use fake word of mouth on both extremes to make everybody angrier and more convinced of their righteousness and their place in the "right" crowd.

This is a brobdingnagian problem on which the first amendment has nothing to say. Can we, as a society, regulate all this? How? Do we turn these private sector tech companies into the arbiters of truth?

I have two small suggestions, FWIW ... steps in the right direction:

1. Make social media platforms every last paid-for post as a paid-for post. Make that law. Just like the newspapers set aside the fake news infomercials with banners top and bottom that say "paid advertising."
   
2. Make social media platforms accountable for policing the activities of fake accounts, scripts, and bots. They can do that. They don't want to because they make money on fake accounts and bots and scripts. Make that law and punish them for failure.
   

[M T]

Facebook & First Amendment are drifting far afield from COVID-19.

Well, let me tell ya about a friend who is having problems with someone daily breaking into her FB account (despite 2FA), ....
   You see how thread drift works....

[M T]

Facebook & First Amendment are drifting far afield from COVID-19.

Well, let me tell ya about a friend who is having problems with someone daily breaking into her FB account (despite 2FA), ....
   You see how thread drift works....

[magnus]

Facebook & First Amendment are drifting far afield from COVID-19.

Well, let me tell ya about a friend who is having problems with someone daily breaking into her FB account (despite 2FA), ....
   You see how thread drift works....

... at a time when she was caring for a friend who was suffering from covid?

[magnus]

Facebook & First Amendment are drifting far afield from COVID-19.

Well, let me tell ya about a friend who is having problems with someone daily breaking into her FB account (despite 2FA), ....
   You see how thread drift works....

... at a time when she was caring for a friend who was suffering from covid?