Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it — Lloyd Chambers. That applies to climate science, COVID-19, and Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Repudiating rational debate on science is as ANTI-science as it gets, yet this attitude has become the new norm in not just the social programming networks (“news”) but it is being used to harass, intimidate and silence those in science and medicine who dare to disagree.
RE: The Doctor Is In: Scott Atlas And The Efficacy Of Lockdowns, Social Distancing, And Closings.
RE: Martin Kulldorff, professor, Harvard Medical School: Letter to the editor: Scott Atlas and lockdowns
RE: COVID-19: Great Barrington Declaration by Medical Professionals and Epidemiologists
RE: The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation
RE: Time to Steepen the Curve and Accelerate Infection of Low-Risk People
RE: AIER: “The Pandemic that Killed Debate”
Only children and vicious people can choose to ignore that fact, by avoiding rational debate over critically important issues that amount to death by government policy failure. Try to do so, and you’ll be harrassed, and that’s the fun part.
Yet a few brave voices of reason are still out there, such as Professor of Epidemiology Sunetra Gupta at Oxford University (interview below), Professor of Epidemiology Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Professor of Epidemiology John Ionaddis of Stanford University, Dr. Malcom Kendrick of the UK, and the lightning rod for it all, Dr Scott Atlas.
Martin Kulldorff, professor, Harvard Medical School:
Letter to the editor: Scott Atlas and lockdowns
Sept 16, 2020
In an open letter, 98 Stanford faculty members accuse their Stanford colleague and White House COVID-19 advisor Scott Atlas of “falsehoods and misrepresentations,” claiming that “many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science.” Surprisingly, the alleged falsehoods are not mentioned, making scientific discourse difficult.
Among other things, the letter advocates handwashing, which Atlas obviously agrees with. So, what are the disagreements?
While anyone can get infected, there is a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and young, and the risk to children is less than from annual influenza. Using an age-targeted strategy, Atlas wants to better protect high-risk individuals, while letting children and young adults live more normal lives. This contrasts with general age-wide lockdowns that protect low-risk students and young professionals working from home, while older higher-risk working-class people generate the inevitable herd immunity.
The open letter ignores collateral damage caused by lockdowns. Being a public health policy expert, it is natural and reassuring that Atlas also consider plummeting childhood vaccinations, postponed cancer screenings, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, deteriorating mental health and more house evictions, just to name a few.
Among experts on infectious disease outbreaks, many of us have long advocated for an age-targeted strategy, and I would be delighted to debate this with any of the 98 signatories. Supporters include professor Sunetra Gupta at Oxford University, the world’s preeminent infectious disease epidemiologist. Assuming no bias against women scientists of color, I urge Stanford faculty and students to read her thoughts.
Martin Kulldorff, professor, Harvard Medical School
WIND: given that the issue is life and death, the Stanford signatories ought to take a long look in the mirror for their anti-life, anti-reason, anti-science “viewpoint” which is nothing more than a naked ad-homiment political attack.
When a professional refuses to address any factual points, refuse to debate the issues, that is as ANTI-science as it gets and grotesque violation of medical ethics—those Stanford doctors are not professionals, but scoundrels who have no business practicing medicine.