Dr. Nathan Sneddon, my brother-in-law, shared the following illumination of arguments made by Dr. Scott Atlas:
In March of 2020, there was very little we knew about COVID-19 including its mortality rate and how it can and cannot be spread. We knew it was associated with Acute Respiratory Stress Syndrome and this is generally how COVID becomes lethal. But we knew very little more about it beyond that.
However, based on empiric evidence, we know much more now. Dr. Atlas’s summary of “wholly unscientific rules, restrictions and mandates” include:
- Closures of businesses
- Closures of in-person schools
- Mobility restrictions
- Curfews
- Quarantines
- Limits on group gatherings
- Mask mandates
Dr. Atlas summarizes how these either are not based in science or have not prevented the spread of COVID-19:
- Bendavid et. al. demonstrated that mandatory stay-at-home and business closures were associated with “no significant benefit on case growth”: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883103/
- “Younger people have little risk from this infection” (case fatality rate is essentially zero for anyone under age 40 and only minimally beyond zero for pages 40-50): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73777-8
- “Young children are less likely to transmit COVID.” Posfay-Barbe et. al. demonstrated that children actually acquire COVID from adults rather than transmitting it to adults: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/2/e2020004879
- NIH states: “When consistent distances is not possible, face coverings may further reduce the spread of infections droplets from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection to others.”
- A randomized controlled study from Denmark by Bundgaard et. al. showed that widespread mask usage has only minimal impact on COVID infection rate: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
- The WHO prior to Oct 2020 stated that “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider.”
Federalist 