When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to know we're ready for you. Here are just a few of the people at Metro to tell you how we're doing our part to keep writers safe. Cleaning before you're found, Hans out of no mask, no Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving. Find out more at well mata dot com slash doing our part California where this past week thousands of people were massing on beaches
and very close quarters. Simple question, is not safe if it's done with social distancing. Yes, if it's not done with social distancing, no little. Earlier on the Armstrong and Getty Show, we quoted a piece on the Hill dot com by Dr Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution that the data is in stop the panic, in the total isolation. And indeed Dr Atlas joins is now. He's the David and Joan try To Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and a member of Hoover's Into the Hoover
Institutions Working Group on Healthcare Policy. Dr Atlas, how are you, sir? Doing well? Thanks for having me good. It's my pleasure. It's been too long. So first of all, speaking of eminent publications. Will get to your piece in the Hill
in a second. But the New York Times is out with the story just this morning alleging that the White House has new projections and indeed the death rate from the COVID nineteen is set to rise steeply, and that what do you make of that if you had a chance to see that, Well, I haven't had the chance to see it, and I try not to have to defend what someone else has written, but I can say that we we we know there will be more people to die, because if you look at the numbers of
people in serious condition, we know there are thousands and thousands of them will die, there's no question. But you have to remember that the death from this does not occur until three to four weeks after the transmission infection. So because someone dies this week or five days from now, that is not a reflection of a new infection. That's a reflection of the infection three or four weeks ago. Right.
And And another problem I have with the article and some of the things other people have said lately, as they're talking about the rise in cases, and the right the number of cases is utterly unknowable because we've had such an enormous rise in testing. That's exactly right. In fact, we can say it another way, which is that we know the number of cases is going up the more we test. By definition, right, exactly so, based on everything you've seen, where are we on the curve on suppressing
this thing, on moving toward normalcy? And where should we be? Well, we know several things since this began. We have the evidence. Number one, we know who to protect. We know that the vulnerable people are older people. Typically, these are the people with underlying diseases that get hospitalized and have a much higher risk of dying. We know that uh people are also being hospitalized in that group. Younger people, healthier people have a very little, if any risk of a
serious illness requiring hospitalization. We know the curves have flattened. We're not in the beginning anymore. We understand the whole goal of the policy originally was to see the curves flattened. Now we're talking about two curves hospitalizations per day, and that's per day. We're not talking about cases, because cases, as we know, are going to be revealed by more testing,
that's not really a relevant statistic. In fact, we know half the people who get the infections are entirely asymptomatic in the overwhelming majority our mild disease cases. So the protection of the vulnerable is the targeted appropriate policy. See. And we know two other very important things. One is based on the isolation policy, and that is there has been a complete stoppage of medical care for people without COVID nineteen pandemic impacts, and so we have stopped essential
critical healthcare. People are dying because they're not getting their chemotherapy, they're not getting their organ transplants, they're not getting their brain surgery, and what's worse, they're not bringing their children in for immunizations. People are not getting cancer screening. Biopsies of tumors that are potentially cancer are not getting done. This is a massive catastrophic healthcare crisis being created by
the policy itself. And then the other thing that we know is that, based on decades of medical knowledge about immunology, virology, and infectious disease, viruses are when they are low, low impact, they get in set the in fact of a lot of people people develop antibodies that is immunity in that immunity in the population is the way that the whole population breaks the chain of contagiousness into including protecting vulnerable people.
That is the exact reason why we give widespread immunizations, for instance, to set up population immunity. That is the reason why scientists are excited about transfusing antibodies from people who've had the infection to people who might get or in trouble with the infection, because those antibodies are presumed to be protective. Do we know that antibodies in this
are protective yet? No, we don't know, but it would be unexpected that they're not, and you have evidence, actually work in progress evidence that that that they probably are. And so, by the way, we have decades of knowledge not just about viruses, but about coronaviruses. And this is the same family. Now this is not this is its own virus, but in the coronavirus family, we know from decades of experience that there is protection for roughly one
to two years. It's it's expected that antibis are protective. That's the whole point of even developing an immunization for this disease itself, right, am I corrected. The current best opinion of science is that the repeat infections that we've heard about people who have gotten over the thing and reinfected were probably false positive tests. Well, because if this then can't be defeated by our own immune systems, even if after we've had it and gotten over it. I mean,
that's truly terrifying. Well, we shouldn't be terrified about anything, first of all, because public policy should never be impacted by fear. It must be based on the science, the data, medical knowledge, and simply logic. Okay, so that's point number one. Point number two, there's sort of a frenzy about this, uh, this idea that we need a vaccine to reopen, and we have to realize there's some magic wand out there for a vaccine because most many vaccines are not protective.
I'll give you an example, the flu vaccine. With the flu vaccine, if you look it up on the CDC website itself, it's only forty effective. That's point number one about the flu vaccine and a vaccine. Point number two, Even with the flu vaccine in the world, every single flu season, three hundreds of six hundred and fifty thousand
people die from the flu with the flu vaccine being given. Okay, so we have to be very careful about somehow there's some magical vaccine out there, not to mention it's going to take many, many months to get a vaccine. This is not happening tomorrow, and implement the you know, giving the vaccine up. So, I mean, there's all kinds of things that are being done that are based upon sort of a lack of logic and illogical and almost you know,
almost irrational, uh sort of methodology. Here. The idea that we must treat and stop every single infection from COVID nineteen at all costs is simply just not rational or logical. That was never the goal of the policy. We have done what we wanted to do, which is flattening the curve. We must end this total isolation. It's it's harmful, it's
it's destructive. Well, and I think a lot of what's driving policy at this point though the governors and the president's people painstakingly repeat over and over again that this is data driven, in science driven. What's missing is we're discussing earlier, is that you have economic damage, and the economy is inseparable from health outcomes. In half a dozen different ways, and as you pointed out, it's brought medical care to a standstill that will directly lead to the
loss of life. And it's just so frustrating that we're hearing only one side of the argument being represented, and that is we must prevent as many cases as possible, and they're wilfully or just ignoring the huge other aspects of the thing. It's frustrating to listen to. Well, I mean, I think those are good points, uh, And we're not really here to criticize what was done. We're only talking about what to do now and what we know now right, and what we know now really is who to protect.
There is no science that says that people must be confined in their homes. There is no science to say that we must close all outdoor activities, parts and recreation and keep you inside your home. The science does not say, does not say to keep K through twelve schools closed. These are children with virtually no risk of serious disease
or or you know, hospitalization. And there is some suggestion, although I don't know, the data is not out yet on this, that there's actually a low level of contagiousness. But I'm not sure about that yet, But we have to follow the science. I'm saying, follow the science and using medical knowledge to proceed. We there is no science to support continuing total isolation. Dr Scott Atlas is a
Senior Fellow with the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Is most recent book is Restoring Quality Healthcare, A six Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost. Uh Scott, Dr Atlas, we appreciate your time very much, really interesting. Thanks thanks for having me. It's it's our pleasure. Yeah, you know, the one sightedness of this makes me nuts. Nobody ever says to Governor X, Y or Z, you're talking about presenting your preventing rather cases at what cost? At what
cost are we doing is? I mean, even if it were effective? And Dr Atlas obviously had some serious questions about the effectiveness or necessity of some of the things that we're doing. Even if if it were effected, given the fact that there are absolutely and disputably enormous costs to the policy, we need to see both sides of the ledger. And I've been making the argument for quite some time about the economy being in a you know, um being linked to health outcomes. And that's absolutely true.
But is the good doctor pointed out it? No, it's it's even more direct than that. People aren't getting chemotherapy. They're gonna die. So are you trading tow COVID lives for one chemotherapy life? How about two COVID lives for two or maybe it's two COVID lives for three, four,
five chemotherapy lives? Is anybody doing that math? Or are they just listening to the muling of the media and and and you know it will become obsessed with this thing because it's such a clickbait and such a good headline grabber, and and you know, the policies are a response to the you know, the emotional about first to the media mostly and not based on any rational weighing of costs and benefits. All right, Uh so we're gonna
finish strong. In a moment or two. Have the absolutely terrific mayor of Newport Beach, California taking on the governor, Gavin Newsom. And what he says is just great. You're gonna want to hear it. It's next when you're ready to ride metro, we want you to know we're ready for you. Here are just a few of the people at Metro to tell you how we're doing our part to keep riders safe. Were cleaning before you've found hansund of size of no masks, no Metro need one. We
have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving. Find out more at well mata dot com, slash doing our part