The people who subscribe to the “party of science” don’t seem to like it when people follow the science much. One of those people is the new COVID-19 policy adviser to the White House, Dr. Scott Atlas, who apparently looked at the full spectrum of data and made a decision about it that the left didn’t like because it went against its narrative.
Now he’s being attacked by the media, which is pretty par for the course. They don’t really like it when you make decisions off data, they’ve shown.
According to Victor Davis Hanson at National Review, Atlas has been very adamant that the U.S. must follow the science on COVID-19 and make decisions based on what they find, and what Atlas found was that people under the age of 65 rarely die from the virus. Anyone younger than 20 hardly shows signs of infection at all.
That’s not all. He soundly came to the conclusion that the number of those with some level of immunity to the virus is much larger than original estimates and that lockdowns are not necessary or helpful as they can endanger Americans who need medical attention for other reasons and won’t get it either out of fear or complications from healthcare providers. That’s not to mention the mental health issues these lockdowns bring about.
In other words, the very strategy the left has stuck to, the one that has helped few to none, is being rejected by a doctor at the White House. Naturally, this means he needs to be attacked. According to Hanson, claims around Atlas “acting unprofessionally” have already begun:
Many in the media, some of his former colleagues at Stanford Medical School, and some other Stanford faculty members have claimed that Atlas — a colleague of mine at the Hoover Institution — has acted unprofessionally. They allege that he has downplayed the lethality of the virus, implying that he is aiding the administration’s efforts to ease out of the quarantine.
Yet few if any of these complainants have cited supporting evidence, either from what Atlas has written or said. Often the accusations turn puerile, suggesting that Atlas can’t be a public-health expert because he was originally a neuroradiologist.
In fact, rarely reported is that many members of the Stanford community are honored by its medical school’s receiving global acclaim for its diversity of expert scientific opinion on the virus.
Perhaps not so surprisingly, the media is already painting his medical “professional” detractors at Stanford as the victims who “won’t be silenced” after receiving a lawsuit from Atlas’s lawyers. The legal team is threatening to hit them with a defamation suit after they signed a letter effectively making him sound like a fraud for being optimistic about his outlook on returning to normal life.
But if you look at the data, he’s not wrong.
Looking at Sweden’s lack of a lockdown and how it’s done well for the country, the science says that releasing lockdowns and returning to normal life is the key to controlling the pandemic. Even the New York Times admitted as much.
If that’s the case, then the only people not following the science are the people demanding more draconian lockdowns and Atlas is one of the few sane people in the room.
While there is a lot of data out there, opinions on the data have Americans in a state of utter confusion thanks to a media and politicized scientific community that would much rather play politics during an election year than actually look at the data and decide whats best that way.
Narratives over data rule the day at this time and that’s about as unscientific as you can get.