Based on the Wuhan virus's known risks, Scott Atlas says to unchain America

A lot of people have suddenly become very sophisticated about analyzing medical and statistical information regarding the Wuhan virus.  Some are good at this and some awful.  The problem for most of us is determining which analyses we can trust and finding long-form narratives that are easy to follow.  For example, Alex Berenson's Twitter feed is an excellent resource when it comes to debunking bad data, but, so far as I know, he hasn't written an extended narrative collecting the affirmative data.  

Enter Scott Atlas.  If the name sounds familiar to you, it's because he debunked the World Health Organization's abysmal World Health Report 2000.  When Atlas authored that debunking, he was a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center.  In other words, he had credentials even a leftist couldn't challenge.

Sadly, Atlas's debunking is no longer available online.  However, here are some  helpful quotations captured elsewhere:

In fact, World Health Report 2000 was an intellectual fraud of historic consequence — a profoundly deceptive document that is only marginally a measure of health-care performance at all. The report's true achievement was to rank countries according to their alignment with a specific political and economic ideal — socialized medicine — and then claim it was an objective measure of "quality."

[snip]

Before WHO released the study, it was commonly accepted that health care in countries with socialized medicine was problematic. But the study showed that countries with nationally centralized health-care systems were the world's best. As Vincente Navarro noted in 2000 in the highly respected Lancet, countries like Spain and Italy "rarely were considered models of efficiency or effectiveness before" the WHO report. Polls had shown, in fact, that Italy's citizens were more displeased with their health care than were citizens of any other major European country; the second worst was Spain. But in World Health Report 2000, Italy and Spain were ranked #2 and #7 in the global list of best overall providers.

[snip]

The nature of the enterprise came more fully into view with WHO's introduction and explanation of the five weighted factors that made up its index. Those factors are "Health Level," which made up 25 percent of "overall care"; "Health Distribution," which made up another 25 percent; "Responsiveness," accounting for 12.5 percent; "Responsiveness Distribution," at 12.5 percent; and "Financial Fairness," at 25 percent.

The definitions of each factor reveal the ways in which scientific objectivity was a secondary consideration at best. What is "Responsiveness," for example? WHO defined it in part by calculating a nation's "respect for persons." How could it possibly quantify such a subjective notion? It did so through calculations of even more vague subconditions — "respect for dignity," "confidentiality," and "autonomy."

Atlas was certainly prophetic about Spain and Italy, considering how poorly they have coped with the Wuhan virus.  Those nations' disastrous experiences proved that, while there may be a lot of free access under socialized medicine, there's not a lot of actual health care.

Atlas, who has since stepped down as chief of neuroradiology, now takes his gimlet eye and astute analytical abilities to the reliable data we possess about the Wuhan virus.  According to him, based on what we know, it's time to stop panicking and resume normal life.  Here are Atlas's core findings, all of which are well fleshed out in his article:

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

[snip]

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

[snip]

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

[snip]

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

[snip]

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

In his conclusion, Atlas urges policymakers to "stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models.  Facts matter."  Given how accurate and prophetic Atlas has been in the past, it's a good idea to pay attention to him in the present.  It's time to protect those who need to be protected and to bring the rest of America back online.

A lot of people have suddenly become very sophisticated about analyzing medical and statistical information regarding the Wuhan virus.  Some are good at this and some awful.  The problem for most of us is determining which analyses we can trust and finding long-form narratives that are easy to follow.  For example, Alex Berenson's Twitter feed is an excellent resource when it comes to debunking bad data, but, so far as I know, he hasn't written an extended narrative collecting the affirmative data.  

Enter Scott Atlas.  If the name sounds familiar to you, it's because he debunked the World Health Organization's abysmal World Health Report 2000.  When Atlas authored that debunking, he was a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center.  In other words, he had credentials even a leftist couldn't challenge.

Sadly, Atlas's debunking is no longer available online.  However, here are some  helpful quotations captured elsewhere:

In fact, World Health Report 2000 was an intellectual fraud of historic consequence — a profoundly deceptive document that is only marginally a measure of health-care performance at all. The report's true achievement was to rank countries according to their alignment with a specific political and economic ideal — socialized medicine — and then claim it was an objective measure of "quality."

[snip]

Before WHO released the study, it was commonly accepted that health care in countries with socialized medicine was problematic. But the study showed that countries with nationally centralized health-care systems were the world's best. As Vincente Navarro noted in 2000 in the highly respected Lancet, countries like Spain and Italy "rarely were considered models of efficiency or effectiveness before" the WHO report. Polls had shown, in fact, that Italy's citizens were more displeased with their health care than were citizens of any other major European country; the second worst was Spain. But in World Health Report 2000, Italy and Spain were ranked #2 and #7 in the global list of best overall providers.

[snip]

The nature of the enterprise came more fully into view with WHO's introduction and explanation of the five weighted factors that made up its index. Those factors are "Health Level," which made up 25 percent of "overall care"; "Health Distribution," which made up another 25 percent; "Responsiveness," accounting for 12.5 percent; "Responsiveness Distribution," at 12.5 percent; and "Financial Fairness," at 25 percent.

The definitions of each factor reveal the ways in which scientific objectivity was a secondary consideration at best. What is "Responsiveness," for example? WHO defined it in part by calculating a nation's "respect for persons." How could it possibly quantify such a subjective notion? It did so through calculations of even more vague subconditions — "respect for dignity," "confidentiality," and "autonomy."

Atlas was certainly prophetic about Spain and Italy, considering how poorly they have coped with the Wuhan virus.  Those nations' disastrous experiences proved that, while there may be a lot of free access under socialized medicine, there's not a lot of actual health care.

Atlas, who has since stepped down as chief of neuroradiology, now takes his gimlet eye and astute analytical abilities to the reliable data we possess about the Wuhan virus.  According to him, based on what we know, it's time to stop panicking and resume normal life.  Here are Atlas's core findings, all of which are well fleshed out in his article:

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

[snip]

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

[snip]

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

[snip]

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

[snip]

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

In his conclusion, Atlas urges policymakers to "stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models.  Facts matter."  Given how accurate and prophetic Atlas has been in the past, it's a good idea to pay attention to him in the present.  It's time to protect those who need to be protected and to bring the rest of America back online.