Stanford doctor explains why coronavirus lockdown policies need to end: 'Ignore the panic and rely on facts'

The former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University said the United States needs to end widespread coronavirus lockdowns and adopt a more targeted approach that both protects the most vulnerable people and builds immunity in the population.

In an op-ed published in The Hill, Dr. Scott Atlas laid out some key facts he believes policymakers are ignoring about the pandemic, and called for leaders to "ignore the panic" when making decisions.

"Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts," Atlas wrote. "Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function."

Atlas wrote that because the overall mortality rate is increasingly looking to be 0.1%-0.5% based on antibody studies, and because that mortality rate is even lower among healthy adults under the age of 50, it makes no sense to continue requiring all of the population to isolate when such a small percentage of people are in real danger from COVID-19.

Instead, Atlas wrote, states should craft policies that focus on protecting the elderly and those with chronic underlying conditions. Targeting that segment of the population, although it's smaller, will have the greatest impact on minimizing hospitalizations (preventing the health care system from becoming overwhelmed) and reducing deaths.

Mass lockdowns are not only unnecessary, but they are actively delaying the process that must occur in order for things to return to normal, Atlas believes. Without a vaccine or proven treatment, the only way to get past the COVID-19 outbreak is to develop herd immunity.

“The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies. “

Another day, another IDIOT from Stanford ruining his career.

This article was published Wednesday 4/22. The New York State anitibody study results were made public the next day and proved conclusively that the fatality rate of Covid19 is at least .9%, 10 times higher than seasonal flu.
The infection fatality rate is at least .9% in NYC, calculated as follows

NYC has 15,411 Covid deaths already which is .18% of the population of 8,400,000. This is the lowest possible infection mortality rate assuming every single person in NYC is infected.

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-data-map-04202020-1.pdf
The recently completed study of 3,000 New Yorkers found an infection rate of 21% in New York City. Therefore the total infected population of New York City is .21 * 8,400,000 = 1,764,000. This includes those infected but who show no symptoms.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html
Therefore the infection fatality rate for Covid19, based on over 15,000 fatalities, is 15,411 / 1,764,000 = .874%
The Santa Clara study was based on testing a population which had only a 1.5% infection rate, so false positives from the test could have made 15 times larger effect on the estimate of those infected.

The quoted death rate of .1% for seasonal flu is the number of deaths over the number of SYMPTOMATIC flu cases. Those without symptoms are not part of the denominator in that calculation (see CDC link below). It is estimated (see nhs.uk link below) that 75% of regular flu cases show no symptoms. This brings the infection fatality rate for regular flu from .1% to .025% if you count infected people instead of just symptomatic people. Covid19 therefore 36 times deadlier than the flu, you can distort the numbers however you want, you can believe whatever you want, but no one can make a plausible argument that Covid19 isn’t at least 10 times deadlier than the seasonal flu, no matter how hard they try.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/three-quarters-of-people-with-flu-have-no-symptoms/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-many-people-already-have-covid-19/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/21/revealing-chinese-virus-excess-death-graphs-coronavirus/

One study says one thing, another study says another thing. Testing specific populations will no doubt come up with dramatically different results.

It still comes down to the fact that those dying are in specific groups, primarily elderly & those with other health issues.

The doctor is right about getting this country back to work. This virus is going to be a permanent part of our lives, whether we like it or not. We can’t quarantine forever, & probably shouldn’t have from the beginning. We’ve now destroyed our economy, many people’s lives, & further indebted this nation. It has to end.

Many of us ‘numbers’ guys have been saying the same thing.

The ‘at risk’ people in the USA are the ones who have a very high mortality rate if they get infected.

Whereas, the healthy working age population is getting infected, but they are not experiencing bad outcomes.

Healthy people need to go back to work. Healthy children need to go back to school. Vulnerable people need to keep hunkering down.

It does not seem the solution to the problem is any more complex than that.

*jazminerose: "Because I do this sort of thing, I looked up some definitions, using a disease prevention context.

You cannot *quarantine* healthy people.

You cannot *lockdown* healthy people.

The only word I found that fit our present situation is *internment*.

Thanks to HotHunt for the above great visual!

If people want to stay home, let them! NO ONE wants to force them to go out!

“””Are older people more in danger of being furloughed or losing their jobs if they stay hunkered down ? I’m not sure how it is possible to (legally) discriminate based on overall age or health condition ?”””

Age is not the sole criteria. Underlying health conditions is the far more important criteria.

I know 75 year old people who are far more healthy than some overweight and diabetic 20 year old.

If an older person with underlying health conditions opts to go back to work, then those people should not come crying when they get infected and become seriously ill.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. Government cannot create a ‘one size fits all’ strategy.

When the USA reopens, those people at all ages with existing health issues had better plan on hunkering down and not going to their local tavern and hanging out with their buddies.

Turns out that the CDC are the ones who are distorting the numbers.

They are ordering Coroners nationwide to list Corona as the cause of death even if people are killed in car accidents, along with a whole list of other causes, IF they had the Corona virus when they were killed. Car accident victims.

Blows your half-assed emotional FearBros arguments out of the water.

The CDC is most likely doing this because they know this pandemic isn’t but a shadow of what they have made it out to be.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.