Nails It

[skirunman]

Sums up pretty much my thoughts as well.

Scott W. Atlas, MD, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, served from August through November 2020 as Special Adviser to the President and was a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Atlas delivered the following remarks in a virtual lecture hosted by the College Republicans.

https://stanfordreview.org/scott-atlas-the-last-word/

Summary for the lazy:

The coronavirus pandemic has been a great tragedy, there can be no doubt about that. But it has also exposed profound issues in America that now threaten the very principles of freedom and order that we Americans often take for granted.

First, I have been shocked at the enormous power of the government, to unilaterally decree, to simply close businesses and schools by edict, restrict personal movement, mandate behavior, and eliminate our most basic freedoms, without any end and little accountability.

Second, I remain surprised at the acceptance by the American people of draconian rules, restrictions, and unprecedented mandates, even those that are arbitrary, destructive, and wholly unscientific.

This crisis has also exposed what we all have known existed, but we have tolerated for years: the overt bias of the media, the lack of diverse viewpoints on campuses, the absence of neutrality in big tech controlling social media, and now more visibly than ever, the intrusion of politics into science. Ultimately, the freedom to seek and state the truth is at risk here in the United States.

My summary, this is a virus that does what viruses have always done, kill the weak and old. The lockdowns, masks, etc. are a "worse cure" than the disease. Goes on to explain why.

[SoCal326]

How about a summary for those too lazy to click the link?

[MJB]

Yep he's right

[LBDamned]

I agree with the second point - and have said so for many months...

The first point isn't surprising at all... but if it weren't for the second point, it wouldn't matter.

Society is to blame- no one else.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I think this is the crux (and always has been) of the issue... From the article...

All legitimate policy scholars should, today, be openly reexamining policies that severely harmed America’s families and children, while failing to save the elderly. Studies, including one in January from Stanford University’s infectious disease scientists and epidemiologists Bendavid, Oh, Bhattacharya, and Ioannidis, have shown the mitigating impact of the extraordinary measures was small at best and according to the study’s senior author Ioannidis, “usually harmful” – in his words, “pro-contagion.” President Biden openly admitted their lack of efficacy in his speech to the nation on January 22, when he said, “there is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”

Whatever your, personal stance on the virus, the reality is, as I said months ago, it would appear to be one of those "things" we're going to have to learn to live with; i.e., mitigating where we can, but not allowing it to 'end' society as we know it. As medical experts have acknowledged, there may be no total eradication possible. However, we do have better treatments, meaning the virulence is not as bad as it was in the beginning.

In a sense, the Democrats and the medical 'authorities' have pronounced this to be the case; even if not directly, then via their actions. If you doubt that or don't believe that's what they've done, then there are questions which need to be examined...

• Why would Biden allow illegals, who have been officially tested 'positive' into the country, without quarantine, vaccine, or treatment, to do as they will; particularly when American citizens who have tested positive, are put under mandatory quarantine? Never mind the 'rights' of illegals vs. rights of citizens. Simply from the standpoint of public health, it doesn't make sense if the goal is eradication.
• Why are the goalposts, near continuously, moved when it comes to declaring 'success?'
• If the vaccines do not offer 'herd immunity' as the media has portrayed it, then why is Biden looking to 'end the pandemic,' at least in some measure, by 4 July? Simply making vaccines available and/or the number of injections doesn't 'put an end' to things or so we've been, repeatedly, told.
• If masks have offered an almost complete mitigation of the current flu season, as some have claimed partially account for the 'nonevent flu season,' then why haven't the mandatory masks provided similar mitigation against COVID? You can't say it's because people aren't wearing them, yet turn around and claim that the wearing of masks has all but eliminated the flu season. Time and pre-existing 'herd resistance' coupled with vaccines? Yes and no. There is no 'immunity' for the flu and vaccines/resistance are dependent upon the current, dominant variant.

There's more, but you get the idea. I'm not saying that the whole thing has been a 'scam.' What I am saying is that it's been USED to nefarious ends. The fact that the severe mitigation which has been used in some states hasn't been anymore 'successful' than the limited mitigation employed in other states is suggestive; particularly when coupled with the political machinations which have been pursued in those respective states.

As I posted, early on, there are competing priorities in this situation and while "follow the Science" has been used as a mantra on all sides, those who championed the likes of Fauci as the ONLY voice to be listened to were rightfully told that Fauci wasn't the 'decision-maker' and that Trump (now Biden) had other concerns to weigh against the myopia of the 'medical' point of view. In fact, that's what Trump ended up pursuing, an attempt at 'balancing' those concerns and it's what Atlas says in the article was his motivation...

All policy considerations I recommended to the President were designed to reduce both the spread of the virus to the most vulnerable and the structural harms of the policies to those impacted the most – the poor and working class of America. I was one of the first to push for increasing protections to those most at risk, particularly the elderly, because they were dying by the tens of thousands because the chosen policies implemented by states, recommended by other Task Force members, were failing to protect them. Almost a year ago, I recognized that we must also consider the enormous harms to physical health, mental health, and lives lost coming directly from the draconian policies that attempted to contain the infection. That is the most appropriate goal of public health policy: to minimize all harms, not simply to stop Covid-19 at all costs.

While I grant that there's a certain element of CYA is his statement, it's what many of us were pointing to from the beginning; e.g., you can't simply 'shut down' the economy indefinitely, the supposed 'cure' can't be worse than the disease, etc. Put another way, it's not about whether Atlas (or Trump or anyone else) "nailed it." It's about what the inevitable reality of the situation was and how nefarious elements would, predictably, 'take advantage' if they were allowed to; something we've, unfortunately seen, in spades.

As is often said, the military tends to try and fight the 'new' war using the tactics/weapons of the 'last' war. The exact, same thing happens with pandemics. What Atlas is getting at is that using the 'tactics' from 100 years ago was neither as effective as was hoped (or claimed), nor was it as 'reasonable' in terms of the potential and real-world impacts it was bound to, did, and continues to have. In short, it's no longer about who/how many will "die" or suffer irreparable 'harm.' It's about the harm which has already been meted out by both the virus and the policies used against and, ostensibly, as a result of the virus.

In theory, we now have the means to mitigate the "who/how many." What we now need is a realistic, not agenda-driven, appraisal of the damage being done by the continuation of policies which, as it now seems likely, even by experts with the best of intentions (never mind the nefarious actors), were erroneously targeted toward 'eradication' under the guise of 'flattening the curve' and 'herd immunity' (rather than 'herd resistance'). Why? So that, going forward, we don't, necessarily, default to century/centuries old policies which may not be applicable to a 'new' contagion and are, likely, no longer suitable to modern societies.

That's my take on his article.

[therealnickb]

How about a summary for those too lazy to click the link?

Atlas nails it again.

[SanDiego619]

Covid is BS

[hermosabeach]

When Obama took office - the US had 8 Trillion in debt
We just spent 6-8 trillion on Covid.

How is this possible?

[CessnaDriver]

When Obama took office - the US had 8 Trillion in debt
We just spent 6-8 trillion on Covid.

How is this possible?

And I think as pandemics go, this wasn't a predator stalking children and the healthy by tens of millions.

What were to happen if we had a pandemic that did?

[LBDamned]

When Obama took office - the US had 8 Trillion in debt
We just spent 6-8 trillion on Covid.

How is this possible?

We're a society full of stupid. That's how.

[elSquid]

When Obama took office - the US had 8 Trillion in debt
We just spent 6-8 trillion on Covid.

How is this possible?

Eh, cheer up. Current unfunded liabilities are only well over 100 trillion.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

https://reason.com/2021/03/11/stop-trying-to-create-a-zero-risk-society-covid-19/

[Fastattack]

I can't overstate the role of the media/social media in all this. The government would NEVER have overstepped (well, they might have tried, but failed) if the media was not a willing lapdog, providing the megaphone, the 'serious' articles, the censoring of opposing views, the "were in this together" propaganda, ... I can go on and on. There is so much conflicting information out there that the average person doesn't know what to believe, so errs on the side of caution. Add to that the government financial incentives for making it look worse (i.e., COVID dollars) and of course, the main driver of it all, the political fallout in favor of the left.

Now, ask yourself if the public would have accepted this if the media had really done their job.

[LBDamned]

I can't overstate the role of the media/social media in all this. The government would NEVER have overstepped (well, they might have tried, but failed) if the media was not a willing lapdog, providing the megaphone, the 'serious' articles, the censoring of opposing views, the "were in this together" propaganda, ... I can go on and on. There is so much conflicting information out there that the average person doesn't know what to believe, so errs on the side of caution. Add to that the government financial incentives for making it look worse (i.e., COVID dollars) and of course, the main driver of it all, the political fallout in favor of the left.

Now, ask yourself if the public would have accepted this if the media had really done their job.

We can blame everything around us... be we (society) are to blame...

You're right, the government couldn't pull it off without the media... but the media couldn't pull it off without people that don't think for themselves.

We are to blame for all of this.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I can't overstate the role of the media/social media in all this. The government would NEVER have overstepped (well, they might have tried, but failed) if the media was not a willing lapdog, providing the megaphone, the 'serious' articles, the censoring of opposing views, the "were in this together" propaganda, ... I can go on and on. There is so much conflicting information out there that the average person doesn't know what to believe, so errs on the side of caution. Add to that the government financial incentives for making it look worse (i.e., COVID dollars) and of course, the main driver of it all, the political fallout in favor of the left.

Now, ask yourself if the public would have accepted this if the media had really done their job.

We can blame everything around us... be we (society) are to blame...

You're right, the government couldn't pull it off without the media... but the media couldn't pull it off without people that don't think for themselves.

We are to blame for all of this.

I don't think he's blaming 'everything around us.' The sense I have is he's 'blaming' the same thing I have lamented for a year. (Note what I emphasized in his statement.)

There has been so much mixed messaging, conflicting messaging, flip-flops, false messaging, misinformation, et al. that people don't know what to believe, let alone what to accept as true or false. Simply because you've made a personal decision doesn't mean everyone has or is able to given that not everyone's circumstances are the same.

In fact, it's not even so much about making a decision, but being able to make an informed decision. To the average person, if they cannot base their decision on what they deem to be reliable information, then it is the rough equivalent to a roll of the dice and not everyone is a 'gambler.' In fact, 'gamblers' aren't even 'gamblers' in that most professional gamblers play the odds; i.e., they make decisions based on being informed as to where the 'best' or 'better' odds are found. In that sense, throwing caution to the wind has, repeatedly, been demonstrated to be a 'less successful' strategy, over time, than sticking to 'the book;' i.e., a more cautious or conservative approach.

So... People ARE thinking for themselves. They just aren't thinking like you and a number of others, where 'demanding' that they do is demanding that they don't think for themselves so much as it is to think like you.

With that said, you are correct in respect to what we're now beginning to see. Until recently, there has simply been too much 'acceptance' to the chaotic messaging. What's starting is a rejection of that 'acceptance' as the 'results' don't match the message we've been handed and the continuation of that message simply exacerbates the seeming lack of results. In a sense and viewed from a certain perspective, the pendulum is beginning to swing and the issue becomes whether, if it swings too far in the opposite direction, whether such would create a whole series of other issues; including a rationale to continue the repressive mandates and enforce harsher ones.

That's precisely what Biden appeared to be alluding to the other day in "his speech" and in his "Neanderthal thinking" comment.

FOX & Friends yesterday or this morning interviewed Texas residents and business owners "on the street" about opening up. The general consensus was that Government shouldn't be making the decisions, individuals and individual businesses should. However, there was a 'mix' of opinions on whether masks (or, at least, the mandates) should be completely abolished at this juncture. It's not that there were 'mask freakers,' but that, in some instances, it was felt that masks were appropriate, for now.

This morning they were talking about how the CDC has now come out with new recommendations/guidelines insofar as kids being allowed to return to Child Care Programs and the strongest reaction was from Jedediah Bila in relation to... "Wear a mask. Everyone 2 and older should wear a well-fitting mask over their mouth and nose, except when eating or sleeping." As she noted, she has a 15-month old and could not envision not only enforcement of that mandate on a 2-year old, but what that might mean to the child psychologically.

In short, people are beginning to push back. The issue becomes how hard, how fast, and how far to go without risking...

• A resurgence in the virus to the degree that the virus does exist and is dangerous to some
• Government reaction in the form of fines, incarceration, and more mandates

Neither can be lightly dismissed across the board. Again, it's not just about philosophical/ideological differences, there are pragmatic issues involved with Government licensing, etc. and the lack of consistent/reliable information on how to mitigate the risks to those who are actually 'vulnerable' (or potentially so) to the virus.

[LBDamned]

^^^ I don't demand people think like me... that's a pipe-dream and unrealistic.

I'm saying - the fault lays squarely on the shoulders of society for accepting and agreeing to the nonsense.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Blaming government, media, CDC, fauci, etc - is futile. None of that would matter if people didn't go along with it all lock step.

ETA: and waiting a year into full fubar to wake up and "push back", is futile as well... way too little, way too late. A year of asinine activity and only now enough people are seeing the BS for what it is? Damage is done friend. Time to reconcile positions in the wake of the new norm.