Scott W. Atlas, M.D.is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a Member of Hoover Institution\u2019s Working Group on Health Care Policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dr. Atlas investigates the impact of government and the private sector on access, quality, pricing, and innovation in health care and is a frequent policy advisor to government and industry leaders in these areas. During the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential campaigns, he was a Senior Advisor for Health Care to a number of candidates for President of the United States. He has also advised several members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives and testified to Congress on health care reform. His most recent book is entitled Restoring Quality Health Care: A Six\u2010Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost <\/em><\/a>(Hoover Press, 2016). Some of Dr. Atlas’s previous health policy books include In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America\u2019s Health Care System<\/a> <\/em>(Hoover Press, 2011), Reforming America\u2019s Health Care System <\/em><\/a>(Hoover Press, 2010), and Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions <\/em><\/a>(Hoover Press, 2005). Dr. Atlas had a Fulbright award to collaborate with academic leaders in China on structuring health care solutions for China, and also participated with leaders from government and academia on the World Bank\u2019s Commission on Growth and Development. He has also advised leaders on health care and medical technology in several countries outside the US, including Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Europe. Dr. Atlas has published and been interviewed in a variety of media, including the Wall Street Journal<\/em>, Forbes Magazine<\/em>, CNN, USA Today<\/em>, Fox News, London\u2019s Financial Times<\/em>, BBC Radio, The PBS News Hour<\/em>, Bloomberg Radio, Brazil\u2019s Correio Braziliense <\/em>and Isto E<\/em>, Italy\u2019s Corriere della Sera<\/em>, Argentina\u2019s Diario La Nacion<\/em>, and India\u2019s The Hindu<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Atlas is also the editor of the leading textbook in the field, the best\u2010selling Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine<\/em>, now in its 5th edition and officially translated from English into Mandarin, Spanish, and Portuguese. He has been editor, associate editor, and a member of the boards of numerous scientific journals and national and international scientific societies over the past three decades. His medical research centered on advanced applications of new MRI technologies in neurologic diseases. While Professor of Radiology and Chief of Neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center from 1998 until 2012 and during his previous faculty positions, Dr. Atlas trained over 100 neuroradiology fellows, many of whom are now leaders in the field throughout the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He lectures on a variety of topics, most notably the role of government and the private sector in health care quality and access, global trends in health care innovation, and the key economic issues related to the future of technology\u2010based medical advances. In the private sector, Dr. Atlas is a frequent advisor to start\u2010up entrepreneurs and companies in the life sciences and medical technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Atlas has received numerous awards and honors in recognition of his leadership in the field. He is recognized internationally as a leader in both education and clinical research and had been on the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for several years. He has been named by his peers in The Best Doctors in America <\/em>every year since its initial publication, as well as in regional listings, such as The Best Doctors in New York<\/em>, Silicon Valley’s Best Doctors<\/em>, and other similar publications. He was honored to receive the 2011 Alumni Achievement Award, the highest career achievement honor for a distinguished alumnus from the University of Illinois in Urbana\u2010Champaign, his alma mater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Atlas received a BS degree in biology from the University of Illinois in Urbana\u2010Champaign and an MD degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Scott W. Atlas, M.D.is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a Member of Hoover Institution\u2019s Working Group on Health Care Policy.","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","episode_type":"audio","audio_file":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/cepa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/21\/2020\/06\/2020-06-23_Policy-at-McCombs_Scott-Atlas.mp3","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"67.33M","filesize_raw":"70598144","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","itunes_episode_number":"","itunes_title":"","itunes_season_number":"","itunes_episode_type":""},"tags":[103,102,101,100],"categories":[],"series":[2],"class_list":{"0":"post-551","1":"podcast","2":"type-podcast","3":"status-publish","5":"tag-healthcare","6":"tag-innovation","7":"tag-private-sector","8":"tag-scott-atlas","9":"series-policymccombs","10":"entry"},"acf":{"related_episodes":"","hosts":[{"ID":693,"post_author":"38","post_date":"2020-10-29 17:58:44","post_date_gmt":"2020-10-29 17:58:44","post_content":"\n Carlos M. Carvalho is an associate professor of statistics at McCombs. Dr. Carvalho received his Ph.D. in Statistics from Duke University in 2006. His research focuses on Bayesian statistics in complex, high-dimensional problems with applications ranging from finance to genetics. Some of his current projects include work on large-scale factor models, graphical models, Bayesian model selection, particle filtering and stochastic volatility models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before moving to Texas Dr. Carvalho was part of the faculty at The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and, in 2009, he was awarded The Donald D. Harrington Fellowship by The University of Texas, Austin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Carvalho is from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and before coming to the U.S. he received his Bachelor's degree in Economics from IBMEC Business School (Rio de Janeiro) followed by a Masters's degree in Statistics from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).<\/p>\n","post_title":"Carlos Carvalho","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"carlos-carvalho","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2020-10-29 17:59:59","post_modified_gmt":"2020-10-29 17:59:59","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/cepa\/?post_type=speaker&p=693","menu_order":0,"post_type":"speaker","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"guests":[{"ID":631,"post_author":"42","post_date":"2020-07-03 20:24:13","post_date_gmt":"2020-07-03 20:24:13","post_content":"\n Scott W. Atlas, M.D.is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a Member of Hoover Institution\u2019s Working Group on Health Care Policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Atlas investigates the impact of government and the private sector on access, quality, pricing, and innovation in health care and is a frequent policy advisor to government and industry leaders in these areas. During the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential campaigns, he was a Senior Advisor for Health Care to a number of candidates for President of the United States. He has also advised several members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives and testified to Congress on health care reform. His most recent book is entitled Restoring Quality Health Care: A Six\u2010Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost <\/em><\/a>(Hoover Press, 2016). Some of Dr. Atlas's previous health policy books include In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America\u2019s Health Care System<\/a> <\/em>(Hoover Press, 2011), Reforming America\u2019s Health Care System <\/em><\/a>(Hoover Press, 2010), and Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions <\/em><\/a>(Hoover Press, 2005). Dr. Atlas had a Fulbright award to collaborate with academic leaders in China on structuring health care solutions for China, and also participated with leaders from government and academia on the World Bank\u2019s Commission on Growth and Development. He has also advised leaders on health care and medical technology in several countries outside the US, including Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Europe. Dr. Atlas has published and been interviewed in a variety of media, including the Wall Street Journal<\/em>, Forbes Magazine<\/em>, CNN, USA Today<\/em>, Fox News, London\u2019s Financial Times<\/em>, BBC Radio, The PBS News Hour<\/em>, Bloomberg Radio, Brazil\u2019s Correio Braziliense <\/em>and Isto E<\/em>, Italy\u2019s Corriere della Sera<\/em>, Argentina\u2019s Diario La Nacion<\/em>, and India\u2019s The Hindu<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Atlas is also the editor of the leading textbook in the field, the best\u2010selling Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine<\/em>, now in its 5th edition and officially translated from English into Mandarin, Spanish, and Portuguese. He has been editor, associate editor, and a member of the boards of numerous scientific journals and national and international scientific societies over the past three decades. His medical research centered on advanced applications of new MRI technologies in neurologic diseases. While Professor of Radiology and Chief of Neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center from 1998 until 2012 and during his previous faculty positions, Dr. Atlas trained over 100 neuroradiology fellows, many of whom are now leaders in the field throughout the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He lectures on a variety of topics, most notably the role of government and the private sector in health care quality and access, global trends in health care innovation, and the key economic issues related to the future of technology\u2010based medical advances. In the private sector, Dr. Atlas is a frequent advisor to start\u2010up entrepreneurs and companies in the life sciences and medical technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Atlas has received numerous awards and honors in recognition of his leadership in the field. He is recognized internationally as a leader in both education and clinical research and had been on the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for several years. He has been named by his peers in The Best Doctors in America <\/em>every year since its initial publication, as well as in regional listings, such as The Best Doctors in New York<\/em>, Silicon Valley's Best Doctors<\/em>, and other similar publications. He was honored to receive the 2011 Alumni Achievement Award, the highest career achievement honor for a distinguished alumnus from the University of Illinois in Urbana\u2010Champaign, his alma mater.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Atlas received a BS degree in biology from the University of Illinois in Urbana\u2010Champaign and an MD degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Scott Atlas","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"scott-atlas","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2020-07-03 20:24:15","post_modified_gmt":"2020-07-03 20:24:15","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/cepa\/?post_type=speaker&p=631","menu_order":0,"post_type":"speaker","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"transcript":" Welcome to Policy McCombs. A data focused conversation on tradeoffs.
\n\ue5d4
\nI’m Carlos Kavala from the Saban Center for Policy at the University of Texas at Austin.
\nA pleasure to have Dr. Scott Atlus from the Hoover Institution, where he’s a senior fellow
\nand also a former professor and chief neuro radiologist at the Stanford Medical School
\nCenter Medical School. Scott, thanks for joining us here. Thanks for having me. So we’re here
\nin June 2nd, 2020, and I want to have a conversation about our
\npolicies and the decisions made leading up to this day associated with the pandemic
\nof October 19. So let’s go back to March or even before that went. When were you
\nstarted to get nervous or concern about what was coming our way and what
\ndata and information where you’re looking at? Then let’s say, you know, late February, March, you’re a
\nwell, you know, I’m like a every human being I have. My first reaction was I was afraid,
\nyou know, because that’s just the normal inclination of something is as bad as what was
\nsaid originally about the fatality rate. And, you know, sort
\nof the assumption that this was we were what’s called medically naive to this
\ninfection, meaning it was brand new and a, nobody would have any immunity, et cetera,
\nas the first reports were sort of really sensationalizing
\nthings so early. I would say in in February,
\nthings started to come out about who was really being impacted.
\nAnd yet there was this public discourse. And then eventually in March,
\nI started writing about this. I think I may have written in February. I don’t remember that. But the
\nreality was that the data coming out was suddenly
\nin the public sphere discussion where people I
\ndon’t know why. Maybe because we live in an era of hyperbole and we live where if you do a Google
\nsearch, you’re an expert and our society confers expertise to people who have
\nnone, but they happen to be successful in some other walk of life or their ranch or whatever the
\nthe rationale for it is. And so there was a public discussion, incredibly naive
\nto what medical science says and really
\ntook off to be a very fearful discussion. And a lot of it was because
\nof these hypothetical projections that were from, you know, early on statistical
\nmodels. But by virtue of being very early are very
\nproblematic by definition because there’s very little actual data entering and it’s just about
\na hypothetical. And somehow this became the discussion. The narrative
\nwas really based on worst case scenario hypothetical. People were afraid it was a bad mix.
\nAnd so so we’re talking early March and in mid-March, I think that’s when you see the projections
\ncoming out of the empirical edge of being like a very influential model that that people cite a lot these days
\nby projecting to have 2.2 million. That’s in the U.S. And so my five hundred thousand, that’s in the U.K.
\nAnd even at that point in time, you would say that the information that we had about China and
\nItaly was already pointing to the risk of the virus being primarily on
\non was not necessarily in agreement with what the projections were making. And and perhaps
\nmore in line with what you’ve been saying about, well, there’s a group at risk here that has a higher chance of infection. Is that correct?
\nWell, there were two parts to it. Two parts to the sort of complete lack
\nof rational or even what I would just call basic common sense about how things were being reported.
\nThe first one was that the numbers were calculated from people who, by
\ndefinition, were sick or not. And so when you talk about a fraction
\nof percent, an infection fatality rate, where the denominator of the fraction
\nis is just grossly underestimated. You have this
\njust strange lack of understanding of that, even though there were people who did
\nunderstand this, that you’re basically saying if if X number of people die divided by the total people
\nwho are infected, but your definition of who’s infected are only the people that saw in a hospital.
\nI mean, that’s just really sort of it’s shocking that people just
\nwent down that pathway in very smart people did some incredibly sloppy thinking.
\nAnd the second part was that we knew from I like this, I’d said, you know, I’ve done dozens
\nof interviews about this stuff. And, you know, anyone in medical school understands
\nwho’s at risk when you have a viral respiratory infection, any viral respiratory infection.
\nAnd you said to a medical student who’s at risk to die if anyone’s going to die.
\nThe answer would be the exact. Group who’s at risk to die here in this? This is not new knowledge
\nyet somehow that was forgotten. And so when we see, for instance, just as
\na background, when you see influenza go into a nursing home. Regular seasonal influenza. It’s
\nmassively destructive. People die like crazy because older people with these
\nsignificant underlying diseases. I’m talking about kidney failure, heart failure,
\nyou know, a chronic lung disease. And particularly the number one thing that makes you susceptible to infection
\nis diabetes. This is widely known. This is not a surprise yet. The public thinks even
\nyou know, even people who I know who are super smart people thought, wow, this is really unusual. No,
\nit’s not. And yet that fact should have immediately prompted
\nattention to protecting those people, because it turns out those are the only people that die.
\nEssentially the only people. So there was a combination of a grossly exaggerated
\nfatality rate and a bizarre
\nidea that somehow shut down everybody. And this is sort of didn’t pass
\na commonsense test, let alone people who had a medical perspective. And I think
\nthis was a big issue was that, like I say, that the narrative, the sensationalizing and the
\npublic discussion by very smart people didn’t have a medical
\nperspective on things. And I could talk about that if you’d like. Because I’m interested. That’s
\none of the. So so I’m very interested in knowing why there was very little dissent
\nto the to the policies that were put in place. I think that you mentioned that there’s a commonsense aspect from medicine.
\nBut from where I sit, I’m from the very beginning I was. OK. What are the tradeoffs we’re facing here?
\nShutting down in the economy, something that’s unprecedented. We cannot even begin to start thinking about the consequences,
\neconomic consequences alone associated with that. And nobody seems to be thinking about this before taking
\nthe decision. All right. That seems to be the the smart
\nopinion out there. No, I was I was viewed as somebody very unorthodox
\nby thinking that then I know we should be a little bit more careful. So do you have any sense why
\nthat was the case? Yeah. Well, yes. So I said from the beginning, really? And I’m not the only one.
\nI’m not I’m not claiming that that there was a massive trade off or there was a policy, basically
\na pass away gone down. What I would call stopping close with 19 at all
\ncosts. And this is this was a gross, really gross
\nfailure of government policy here, as you as you are pointing out, because what
\nwhat happened and I’ve quantified this with some of my economics colleagues and other institutions recently,
\nwas that the sort of a policy was
\nwas a I feel that was based on fear. And it was also placed sort of delegated
\ninto the hands of people who were fearful to begin with. And even the scientists
\nwho were involved there, not that they had a perspective that the only thing that counted
\nwas stopping this infection. And that’s just wrong. I mean, that will go down
\nas an an error of epic proportions when history looks back at this,
\nbecause as we’ve we’ve said and I know I’ve talked about this many, many times I can go through, but there’s
\nso many. The shutdown of the medical care by shutting down overtly
\nin terms of prioritizing over 19, but also by instilling fear in the people, has not
\nonly killed more people, directly killed more people than covered 19 already,
\nbut it will kill even more and is setting up a massive public health crisis.
\nWhy it was done was because people I just have to save people.
\nYou know, we have these political policymakers who were were swayed. They’re medically naive
\npeople. I have to say, I’m disappointed in the economic side of the of this. I mean,
\nmy I worked with a lot of economists. The world of economics is all about
\ntrade offs and incentives and all kinds of things. That’s what I’ve learned since I’ve been at Hoover
\nfor the past decade and a half. Yet the economists
\nwere relatively silent as a group on this. And, you know, it turns
\nout it’s actually not that complicated to figure out because there’s a lot of data, as you know, about what simply
\neven unemployment destroys, let alone the world. And in the
\nU.S. alone, let alone the world poverty crisis that’s going to happen from this. And
\nit’s it’s it was almost all almost all unnecessary.
\nYeah, I I wondered myself about the economists and people that I see around me.
\nAnd I think that early on there was this notion that if you count the value of a life
\nat $10 billion. And there’s 2.2 million people going to die. Well, that’s a large number.
\nTherefore, do whatever day. And but that was not thought carefully.
\nNumber one, the timing and the number is not realistic for all lives, unfortunately.
\nAnd number two, the 2.2 million lives that were were by now, I think
\nwe know that that was out of out of out of whack with the with the with the actual realities
\nof the virus. Right. Yeah. I mean, the models were were really grossly wrong. In fact, there
\nwas a lot of obvious errors in the models themselves, although
\nI hate to criticize people that were projecting on the basis of nothing. But but
\nit turns out that, you know, there is an impact. You know, all of a sudden we had computer scientists
\nin charge of policy. I mean, this is sort of that alone is sort of should raise a red flag.
\nBut what’s going on here? But, you know, they were dealing with there was a there was, like
\nI say, a climate of fear. And as we all know, once fear enters the equation,
\nirrational actions occur. We made a lot of decisions based on worst case scenarios, which
\neven if science is we’re putting forward the uncertainty associated with those projections. I think people latched on the
\nWorst-Case scenario and then decisions are made based on that, which doesn’t how we make decisions in any aspect of our lives. Right.
\nExactly. Especially policymaking make is all about average outcomes, not worst case scenario outcomes.
\nAll right. So now we’re here June and we learn a lot about the virus since. And still we
\nhave lots of places in lockdown and an incredible restrictions in people’s lives. So
\nwhat information have you learned since that that has changed you or your or
\nhas has to provide you more and more certainty about the statements
\nyou’re making now? Yeah, so. So here, here’s what we know. You know,
\nwe know a number one, that the infection fatality rate is far lower
\none tenths or even lower than the original infection fatality rates. And how
\ndo we know that? We know that from data all over the world. And I’m talking about average infection,
\nfatality rate. So you’re talking about looking at data from then in detail, not just the bottom
\nline stuff from France, the Netherlands, Spain,
\neverywhere, Iceland, Taiwan, and now the CDC itself.
\nYet inexplicably, by the way, the CDC posting of this has not been reported,
\nwhich is very frightening. That’s as one part. Knows that a number that’s like point
\ntwo. Five percent, right? 26 percent. Yes. And actually, even that
\nis is actually too high because they didn’t they made the low end assumption about how
\nmany people are asymptomatic and infected. And that’s contrary to what really
\nwe know. The second part of the the danger that we know is that
\nit really is very low danger to anybody who’s under 60.
\nOK. And I’m going to I’ll go forward and say that the data shows when you look inside the papers,
\nnot just at the abstract of the paper. That’s what I mean by very sloppy. There’s an absence of critical
\nthinking going on by very smart people here. When you look at the data from all over the world,
\nincluding the US, you see that if you’re under 60, under 60 years old,
\nyour ear infection fatality rate is less than or equal to seasonal influenza.
\nOK. Now, in the beginning, you couldn’t even uttered those words because it was
\nyou were it sort of like saying the earth is third there? Yeah. The reality is the science deniers
\nare denying that fact. I mean, I hate to say it that way, but it’s it’s it’s it’s just factual
\nthat that’s the infection fatality rate for under 60. And that means nothing about minimizing
\nthe tragedy or the seriousness of the infection. It’s very, very dangerous for people
\nwho are in a certain class. What class? People over 80. OK. And people with serious
\nunderlying diseases, particularly diabetes. It’s very risky. It’s it’s
\nit’s it’s high fatality rate. So under 60 is less
\nor equal to seasonal flu. And more so even more explicit data now. Very
\nconvincing. Overwhelming data that there is literally zero risk,
\nalmost zero, almost zero for a fatality in people under 9 18,
\nmeaning children and almost zero risk of a serious illness. For people in
\nthe childhood ages. So there is really almost no there there’s no rational
\nreason to do things like closed schools or space out children or have children
\nwear masks. This is really completely antithetical to the science.
\nIt has a lot of implication. This this denial of evidence about children,
\nbecause again, and we could talk about this, but there’s a lot of harms, not just for
\neconomic lockdown, but to to think that it’s OK to have children shut
\nout of schools is an incredible lack of thought about what’s going on here,
\nbecause you have harms, not just from distance learning. This is a fantasy
\nthat distance learning, it’s OK. We can do that until we open up schools. I mean, who who
\nare they talking about? I mean, there’s a 30 percent drop in reading rate and reading comprehension
\nalready in Boston. A huge percentage of children have never even logged on.
\nOK. This is going on all over the country. Every educator I read studies and that’s there. It’s a city that
\nyou. And you know that what I call the paraphernalia of the affluent, meaning I
\npads and software and all kinds of rapid broadband Wi-Fi. I mean, this
\nstuff is not universally available to people. This is really destroying and
\nsetting up a further unequal, unequal outcome in education from different
\nsocioeconomic groups. It’s really a disaster. I just wanna make one more point about what we know
\nabout the data in children. We also know that this idea
\nthat children must be contained because they can transmit the disease.
\nI mean, there’s two floors to that. Number one, you don’t lock down the people who are healthy.
\nJust because somehow an indirect damage can occur, you protect the people
\nwho we know should be protected. That’s sort of common sense has nothing to do with it. You don’t have to be
\na medical scientist. Understand that. I would think about the second point is that there’s an overwhelming
\namount of evidence that, again, is just not really acknowledged by these people who want to keep schools
\nshut. Children don’t even transmit the disease hardly ever, if ever. I can’t say they
\nnever do. That would be not not really true or not certainly not proven.
\nCertainly already proven that children are very low likelihood
\nof transmitting the disease to adults, even in their own parents, even to their own
\nparents. And hot. You know, the original papers that the push for schools closure
\non the basis of children being contagious have been completely destroyed in the
\nliterature. And so, again, there is this fear. But the reality is
\nthat closing schools isn’t is purely harmful to the people whose schools
\nare supposed to serve in. It’s harmful to the children. It’s the lack of socializing, the
\nlack of physical activity. I think every one of us understands that what we learn in school
\nexpands far beyond just what you can learn from a book. Otherwise, you really wouldn’t go to school,
\nhonestly. And secondly, that this idea that the teachers need to be
\nprotected in K-through-12 schools invited states, half teachers,
\nhalf the teachers are forty one years old or younger. Eighty two percent are
\nunder fifty five. That’s not the risk. If there are high risk teachers,
\nwe know how to do social distancing for them. They can surround themselves with a six foot space.
\nThey can use a Plexiglas shield if they’re fearful. They can wear all kinds of stuff
\nto protect themselves or even teach from home if they want to. That has nothing to do
\nwith shutting down schools. It is just completely irrational and very harmful.
\nAnd this idea as a another point that we know and I’m going to say this because very
\nfew people even talk about it, this idea of masks being necessary,
\nparticularly for children, is completely irrational. First of all, the W.H.O.
\nitself, this is another thing that’s not even been in the news because I just don’t know why nothing positive
\nis really explained. The W.H.O. itself, a cautious
\ninternational organization. Has on their Web site the following,
\nquote, Healthy people only should wear a mask when taking
\ncare of comfort. 19 patients from last week or so. Right. Yeah.
\nThat’s not talking about asymptomatic people. That’s not talking about potential people.
\nThis is really talking about the only reason for an otherwise healthy person to wear a mask
\nin any situation is if they’re literally thinking someone with comfort 19
\nwho’s sick and coughing around, coughing in their face could contaminate them. That
\nmeans in a hospital, or if you have somebody in your home who is coughing and sick,
\nit’s reasonable to wear a mask, but otherwise protect now in schools to have children
\nwear a mask. Given all the data I just outlined on children having zero risk
\nand not even being contagious, really, you should protect people who want to be protected.
\nBut children. It just doesn’t make sense. And this idea of wearing masks in public.
\nI’m sorry to keep going down, but that investment in these days is the thing that most most
\nis in my mind. Is that what we about about schools in the fall? Yeah, because I know when we lock
\ndown children, as everyone knows, you’re locking down parents. OK. It’s
\nnot true that everybody’s walking around with a nanny in their house or it’s only an inconvenience
\nthat their kids are underfoot. I mean, this is it’s not this is really a complete lack of understanding
\nof real world. You can’t go back to a job if you have a child, if you
\nhave children at home. But the harms to the children themselves really are the biggest
\nissue, including the summer programs, by the way. There is no reason to stop summer
\nprograms. And what we see now is this bizarre set of regulations,
\nnot just in K-through-12 schools, but in, unfortunately, our own universities. But I’ll give you an example.
\nL.A. County has something like a 54 page booklet on opening schools. It was just
\nreleased and they’re talking about as many communities are half days distance
\nlearning, six foot spacing, children wearing masks one way, walking in hallways,
\ngiving a little kid a ball at recess with their name on it. And no one else can touch
\nthat. This is really this is I don’t know I don’t even know how to explain how irrational
\nwhat we’re seeing is in. And unfortunately, the policy makers are
\njust being basically to me, honestly. And it’s not political. They’re just exposed as being grossly incompetent
\nand unable to do the job. But it’s to the point of distraction, really. It really is.
\nAnd I think it illustrates a lot the lack of tradeoff thinking or the fact that the fact that
\nthis this thing’s a 54 book was made. And I don’t think there’s any consideration to the
\noutcomes in terms of learning outcomes, in terms of some social behavior, the outcomes. Also
\npsychological outcomes. I mean, children to be terrified to go to school if they think you are a vector
\nfor this and something really that they’re very
\neasy to to impress them. Right. So so creating that burnt familia, familiar fear around them is not going to do
\nsomething very good for the long term. And then there’s other issues also that are even more direct related
\nto children’s health. Number one, we know the data shows more than half of children are not
\ngetting their vaccinations because people are afraid to bring them near a medical facility. This is on the
\nCDC pages. This is fact, which is a future health
\nreally catastrophe. But but secondly, you know, people go to school in a lot of people,
\na lot of children first are detected to have, say, a hearing problem or a vision problem
\nat school by the school. Is this a school environment that the school
\nnurses in these kinds of sort of healthy health maintenance or health detection
\nactivities are often done in school, not to mention sort of, you know, lower socio
\neconomic groups get a lot of their adequate basic nutritional needs met
\nfrom food at school. I mean, there’s really a massive problem, a disconnect
\nbetween the governing powers that be in the end, the role
\nof schools. The role of schools is for the children. The children are safe in schools.
\nIn fact, in many ways, they’re safer in schools. There’s a better environment where destroying
\nand work like you’re sort of implying there. I feel we’re creating
\nsort of a generation of neurotic children by making them afraid and wearing masks.
\nAnd no one can anticipate or define really the ultimate end point of that
\nin terms of the long term outcome. We’re already seeing, by the way, indicators
\nthat that suicides are higher now in younger people from the locked
\nup and suicide calls to hotlines. There’s articles all over about
\nthis are increasing. I mean, the massive destruction of the power. It
\nis far higher than Koven 19 directly, so let’s finish
\nwith school. That’s one more thing in a top US school. You mentioned universities and me
\nversus a lot of them. Are men planning for the fall. And yes, just like the L.A. County,
\nthere’s a lot of different reverses and very elaborate plans on how to deal with things, how to manage students, rotating
\nthem in classes occupancy, reducing occupancy tremendously
\nin their in their classrooms. How do you think about that and what are the thing? So
\nwhat would you consider that that group of people being so low risk as well, that this is not the way we should be going forward?
\nAbsolutely. I mean, 80 percent of university students are under 24.
\nAnd, you know, the overwhelming majority of people in
\nthis age group. I mean, you could look at data from under 20 under 30 age bracket.
\nIt’s extraordinarily low. If we were to take the logic that’s being used
\nto make these modifications, then I have no idea why they don’t do that every November
\nthrough April during flu season in the United States alone. Fifty thousand plus
\npeople die every year from flu. And it’s the same high risk group, basically.
\nActually, it’s more it’s worse for you, for young children. The flu is far more dangerous for young children.
\nIn fact, just as a comment. The bottom line of a study in JAMA Pediatrics
\nabout a week or two ago of forty six hospitals in North America. Pediatric hospitals.
\nTheir bottom line conclusion was, quote, The likelihood of a critical illness
\nfrom seasonal influenza is far greater than from COVA, 19 and children.
\nSo but the point about the university population is the youtz. It’s absolutely the same. There is
\nzero science, zero reason to have any kind of modification whatsoever
\nin terms of mass spacing, changing classes to distance zero.
\nWe know who to protect and the protecting is not necessary for young people.
\nIn fact, it’s actually not only is it no problem to get the
\ninfection for 99 percent of people under 60.
\nMore than ninety nine percent. But the reality is that for people in it
\nthat are low risk groups, which college population is essentially it’s
\nharmful to establishing population immunity because population immunity depends
\non immunity individually. That breaks the connectivity
\nchain toward the vulnerable. This is what the purpose of vaccines. Vaccines are are
\nare injections that generate antibodies and that that’s sort of
\nwhy. Population theory about using vaccines widely is only
\nto induce the so-called herd immunity. It turns out and this is you know, there’s so much to say
\nit could get off track, but there’s a lot of immunity in this disease that is not detected by the specific antibodies.
\nAnd that’s sort of a medical science issue that is interesting. We can talk about some other time, but
\nthe reality is that the same issue applies to universities as it does to
\nK-through-12 in both sides. Number one, the reason you go to college
\nis not just to learn to sit there and learn online. I mean, nobody would pay
\nthe money to go to Stanford University if that’s what Stanford University was all about.
\nWhether or not it’s worth it, it’s a separate issue. But even in this sort of environment
\nhere, that is like to me. I just I think that we have an illustration, again,
\nof people who really don’t understand. They’re not using common sense and logic and looking at the science.
\nWe have a dramatic example here of what what is the purpose
\nof the universe. To me, if I could pick one thing, it’s to teach people how to use critical thinking.
\nIt’s not to memorize facts. It’s not to memorize history. It’s not if
\nI had to pick one thing. And we are showing a gross absence of critical thinking by the leadership
\nin universities. You know that if you want to protect the high risk professors,
\nthen we can protect them. In fact, they can if they’re so afraid of walking into an environment
\nor if it’s medically reasonable to have that fear either one. They’re welcome to teach from
\na distance as far as I’m concerned, or setup a sixth sense to them. Right. Anything
\nthey want to do is fine, but to stop the interaction of young, healthy people,
\njust like it is completely irrational and counter to the evidence and the science,
\njust like it is to limit restaurants and require 6 foot spacing to limit
\nbusinesses are required. Now I think it’s fine to have. You could put a warning up there
\non the on the door. But you know, to claim that restaurants have to have 6 foot spacing.
\nNobody’s forcing anyone to walk into a restaurant. I’m not. Kading, that you must go into a
\nrestaurant. You must go into a bar. Now, if you’re afraid, if you’re high risk, OK. You
\ndon’t have to go in. But. But that’s sort of the opposite from what’s being done, which is to make
\nall these so completely irrational restrictions on healthy people
\ninstead of simply protecting the risk, which, by the way, not only the destruction of the policy, but
\nthe gross, really egregious. You know, I’m not a lawyer, but I would use the word criminal
\nnegligence or even worse, of killing all the thousands of people in the nursing homes
\nwho amount to 40 percent or more of the deaths even
\nafter the lockdowns. I’ll give you an example, New York, they lock down New York state on March
\nthe nursing home residents. OK. That that kind of order was called for by.
\nBy many of us months before that was introduced. And when you look at
\nstates, it’s not just New York, it’s the West Coast, the Midwest, the East Coast. I’m talking about 50,
\nup all the healthy people. And by the way, the US does not have a monopoly
\non this complete failure. Even countries that were sane, like Switzerland,
\nSweden, I mean, Switzerland. Fifty three percent of the deaths were in nursing homes in Stockholm
\nitself. 70 percent of the deaths were in nursing homes. I mean, this, like I
\nsay, is like a common sense medical school, one or one,
\nyou know. And instead of doing that, what was necessary and was called for by many
\npeople, they just decided to lock down everybody and just forgot about that. It’s
\nreally inexplicable. So so part of what I think there is
\nthe suggestions of continuing the social distancing and restrictions and in
\nschools, the university, et cetera. Is this notion that people that might not be at risk individually
\nby them congregating generates an externality, a negative actuality that is going to increase the chance of somebody,
\na nursing home being infected at the end of the day? What I find interesting about the lack of
\ndiscussion about the positive action out that you just mentioned on the herd immunity
\nto young people is if you’re if you’re able just to sever the connection between the young and the
\nold, that is what’s needed, because then you create a Orza rationality for society. We essentially
\nget vaccination naturally if the young and healthy are able to get it. But that, again,
\nyou mentioned economies being silence. And there’s that’s a very clear economic point that has not been
\nmade and has not been taken into account in the epidemiological models. And then the other the other
\nsort of is distortion of what the whole policy goal ever was to begin with.
\nThere is no goal. There never was. And the numbers should be of stopping all cases
\nof covered 19. It doesn’t matter if you get the disease, if you’re not going to have
\na serious complication. This is sort of I don’t even know why that has to be explained. But somehow there’s
\nthis focus on, oh, my God, we must have cases stop. No, that’s not true.
\nWe only have to prevent the cases going to the people who are going to die or have a serious
\nillness from it. And you know that that is actually sort of lost in the other
\npart of this equation about herd immunity, which is that the actual contagiousness of the disease
\nand the numbers that were calculated are based on a very flawed. And now
\nEvidences is coming out on this concept of immunity. The immunity to
\nthis disease is more than just the specific antibodies to
\nthis virus. And that’s the most likely explanation, not anything else.
\nIt’s the most likely explanation of why Asian populations had less problem
\nwith this. They have a tremendous amount of experience with other corona viruses
\nand other Saras viruses. There is a cross immunity here. This
\nis coming out now and it’s being exposed. But again, we don’t get any discussion
\nof this sort of science. It’s esoteric knowledge. But this
\ncalculation that keeps being repeated even as recently as two days ago by again, very smart, qualified
\npeople about the need for herd immunity to require 60 or 70 or 80 percent
\ninfection rates. It’s just not true. It really is just not true. It’s false. It’s
\nit’s contrary to the science. For instance, when we look at the Princess
\ncruise ship from Japan, where it was a closed population with no social distancing
\ndone in mainly old people, even butstill closed population. Twenty
\nfive percent. Twenty four percent of people were infected. I mean, how would you account for that if it was so contagious
\nand there was no distancing done unless there was a natural immunity that was already present, even
\nthough it’s not detected in the base of the antibodies themselves. There’s all kinds of data coming.
\nIn this budget, I just thought of it as another example of refusal by scientists
\nsomehow who are either wedded to some previous theory or who are fearful themselves.
\nSo go back to something you wrote recently. On the on the sort of health tradeoffs. And
\nlet’s talk a little bit about that. I think your number. You estimated that we already
\nlost per month something like seven hundred thousand years of life by not
\nby not treating people and by the indirect effects of locking locking things down, which would
\nadd up to one point five million years if given the amount of time that we have
\nbeen in lockdown, far surpassing what we’re going to be. We’ve seen it already in terms of Colvert
\nor we will see for the end of the year. Tell us a little bit more about about that calculation. What what, what,
\nwhat, what it what goes into it? Sure. So there were two aspects as you point, and we were very conservative
\nin these numbers because we only considered a certain list of things. We wanted to be
\nconservative, but we wanted to also consider what we knew we could get data. So on the health
\ncare side, the hospitals shut down by directive for, quote, nonessential
\nconditions as well as instilled a massive amount of fear. I sort of alluded to
\nthis, but, you know, we the numbers are six hundred fifty thousand Americans have
\ncancer in the you and I have chemo regimens. Half of them stopped
\ngoing in. Forty percent of people with an acute stroke would normally come in within
\nhours. They didn’t call the ambulance. Eighty five percent
\nof living organ donor transplants procedures were not done compared
\nto the previous year, over that single month, actually, of lockdown.
\nAnd it goes on and on. Two thirds of cancer screenings were not being done. Sometimes three fourths,
\nyou know, half of immunization, plus more than half of immunizations were not going. So these things have
\ncalculate a bill from the actuarial tables,
\nfrom the published data, from the CDC, from life expectancy. And we calculated
\nthe loss of life years, given the age, given the, you know, the
\nmissed cases. We we, for instance, we were very conservative in just calculating only the things
\nthat were cited in that paper. And in addition, we said, well, let’s just say only 10 percent
\nof people who skipped an immunization didn’t get it. It’s likely it’s going to be larger than
\nthat. Common sense tells me that we took the other side of the summation,
\nwhich was due to the economic lockdown. And instead of going through every possible
\nmanifestation, which there is economic data, as you know better than I do about the calculation
\nthat translation of loss of GDP or whatever, two lives lost
\nand who who is lost, loss of jobs. We only took the unemployment number
\nand of course, we stopped it, I think thirty six million at the time. We know that’s going to be much larger.
\nYou’re ready. Forty. Yeah, it’s over 40. By the time the paper came out, it was only a few days
\nafter we submitted it was thirty nine point six or something. So. But anyway, we just did
\nthat. And what we came up with was that each month of lockdown. Was
\nalmost equal in life years lost in the United States to the
\ntotal of the Koven 19 pandemic life years lost at the time when
\nthere were roughly one hundred thousand just under one hundred thousand deaths. And so we
\ncalculated that. And of course, we use the actuarial tables in. It does. You know,
\nit’s not minimizing value of a life when you calculate life years
\nlost. It’s the only way to rationally do it. And we find that in the two months, as you
\nmentioned, it was almost doubled. So you’ve changed a 1 X life years
\nlost from Cauvin 19 and you’ve added 2 X more. So you’ve tripled the damage and that’s
\njust after 2 months. We know the lockdown is continuing, even though a lot
\nof sort of what I consider misleading statements are made, oh, we’re open or we’re opening.
\nI mean, we’re opening in such a ramp a minimal way compared to what’s going on here
\neconomically particularly. But also it’s very slow to
\nregain the confidence of the public in getting health care. It’s starting. It’s clearly starting. But, you know, when
\nyou look, there are other numbers we didn’t even use. Two thirds of physical therapy was not being done.
\nYou know, 50 percent of urgent care visits were not getting done. I mean, this is serious
\nstuff. It was hard to quantify. Exactly. So we were conservative and did
\nwhat we could. The number is a gross underestimate of the life years lost from the lockdown.
\nI can guarantee you that our day quality adjusted or not. Now,
\nwe just did life years. You know, there’s so the more I what I didn’t want to do is fall into
\nthe trap of modeler. We didn’t do anything that complicated. We did some
\nsort of very simple but let you know, sort of legitimate stuff
\nthat wasn’t really deniable, although I’m sure people were going to argue and nit pick. But
\nI think I said to someone once interviewing me about this, I think the nit picking really
\nis that we were too low in our in our estimates. So so, you know, we
\nmentioned that we are we’re now in experimentation phase where some places are in the US
\nin particular to have some states open, some states close. And some states saying that
\nare going to be close for a lot longer than that. Then like me here in Texas, here in California,
\nwhere things are still severely closed. Right. And all we’re seeing, pretty much every
\ncountry in Europe opening up to some extent, some of them allowing kids to go to school and so
\non. As you look at the evidence coming out of that process now, the process of unwinding
\nthe lockdowns, does anything worry you? Do you see anything that that
\nthat that is concerning or because every single epidemiological
\nmodel predicts under their assumptions that we’re going to be moving towards a second
\nwave? Right. Well, it’s not true that every single one. But the ones
\nthat are and publicly discussed, certainly. So there’s two aspects to the question
\nto answering it. Number one. No, I don’t see the projections about the sort
\nof explosion due to the opening. It’s just not happening. It’s not happening in the United States.
\nIt’s not happening in Europe. In fact, an interesting comment was
\nmade in a couple of countries in Europe. One is in Switzerland where they’ve actually accelerated
\nthe opening because. Apsley, nothing is happening. But the second part is in
\nNorway, the prime minister of Norway was quoted yesterday or the date. I think the day before. I mean,
\nthe days are sort of one day to me now because it’s all covered 19, 24\/7.
\nBut as she said, something like, you know, I admit
\nthe decisions were made out of fear. I shouldn’t have closed schools, you
\nknow, and all kinds of disclaimers and actually honesty about how how how really
\npoor decisions were made. Now, she actually made a statement that was stronger in the
\nsense that she said even if there is a second wave, we’re not going to close schools. Yeah.
\nAnd actually so there’s two things to this. There’s of this idea of a second wave. Let me really
\naddress that is a hypothetical. OK. I mean, no one zero
\npeople know there’s going to be a second wave. I don’t care what they say. This is ludicrous to
\nsay. There is definitely a second wave. There might be a second wave. I’m not saying there definitely won’t be.
\nBut we can. We can say that other stars didn’t necessarily have a second
\nwait. They disappeared. In fact, the the
\nthe drug by GUILIA Rum, Dessa fear that was brought out very quickly
\nhere and tested in this virus. The only reason it was tested so quickly
\nwas because the original studies that were done already had determined safety in primate
\nmodels and part in sort of efficacy too. Why was that never
\napproved for previous Saras virus? When it was actually the drug was invented
\nbecause there were no more patients to test it on. And now we see in the news, as I think
\npeople have seen, the vaccine makers right now are frantic because
\nthey’re, quote, running out of patience. They may need a certain N to be able to test
\nand prove efficacy. And if those no patients around, there’s no patients to test
\nand prove the vaccine. And that’s a real problem. And it’s it’s actually true that as viruses
\nmutates genetically, this, again, is another example of sort of what’s been propagated
\nin the public. Good discussion. Somehow that’s so dangerous. Oh, my God. We’re not able to find the
\nvaccine. But the reality is, that’s also how viruses become weak
\nand disappear. They mutate. They get what are called deletions and there a genetic sequence
\nand they’re ineffective. In fact, they may be present, but they don’t harm the host. That’s how
\nthey survive. They become a weaker. And so the second wave is a hypothetical.
\nI know a lot of the day I get I get honestly, when I started writing about this, I was
\ngetting thousands of e-mails from all over the world, from not just regular people,
\nbut top medical scientists, epidemiologists from all over the world thanking me for
\nbeing so outspoken on this, saying I’m saying something exactly right
\nand they’re afraid to come out. Other evidence. So my point as a lead in is other epidemiologists
\nhave noted that the likelihood of a second wave is nowhere near what we thought it was,
\nin fact. Another example of something that’s unpublicised the W.H.O. itself.
\nAnd now Fouchier sort of agreed with this, but the W.H.O. said we think
\nthat the second wave likelihood is less likely than we were talking about. They said that the W.H.O.
\nrecently, she even said, well, we don’t really know. There’s going to be a second wave.
\nSo, I mean, that that’s also not not considering the following, and
\nthat is we are a different country, not we are a different world now we understand how
\nto deal with this sort of thing. No one knew what the term social distancing meant. I don’t
\nthink before this we don’t. Right. Well, we understand how to how to use
\nsanitization. We understand who to protect. Which I think, again, we keep forgetting
\nthat there is a targeted population here. We we did a great
\nkind of learning on the fly on how to mobilize medical resources. And,
\nyou know, I’ve been in discussions with people on how to do that in conjunction with military
\nstrategic mobilization work. And so we are
\nwe’re not just a naive population if there is some sort of second wave,
\nbut the second wave. It’s possible. But I think this idea that, oh, my God,
\nwe’re going to have a second wave, we’d better hunker down. We can’t have schools. What happens in the fall? I just
\nthink this is a gross distortion. Again, just fear based stuff
\ngoing on rather than looking at the science. Yeah, and
\nabsolutely. If we if we just keep looking at the
\nevidence, keep looking at the evidence is all I can ask people to do and stop getting the projections
\nbased on hypotheticals thing that you wrote, something that that was very striking as that. Let’s go back
\nto the evidence and stop looking at hypotheticals. One of the problems that I’ve seen happening a lot
\nin this process was that people have been using hypotheticals as evidence, and that’s not the scientific
\nprocess we don’t use. I put the hypothesis as evidence hypotheses are to be tested. Right.
\nAnd, you know, and we still I think we’re still see there’s a lot of pushback. I mean, I live in a state
\nthat has been moving to towers reopening. And I think the default critique
\nfrom the majority of academia is that we’re doing too fast where we’re just putting
\nourselves into into a real bad situation very, very soon. Yeah. And the evidence
\ndoesn’t seem to be providing that information. Wants to go look at everywhere that has been reopening.
\nAbsolutely. And again, you don’t have to be political. It’s not a political issue, really,
\nalthough it’s been sort of it somehow becomes. Everything is political. But the reality
\nis, when you look at what states have done that have opened and I would even go so far
\nas to say I prefer to even look at countries that are not the United States and see what’s
\nhappened because Europe is ahead of us in terms of opening even places that were more damaged.
\nI’m talking about places like France, Spain, Italy. These places had a far bigger problem
\nthan the United States on a per capita basis. They did much worse than the United States did
\nin there, the size of basically a big state. And they still couldn’t handle it, by the way, with our health
\ncare system, which is a separate issue. But but the reality is, when you look at these
\ncountries and we know where we are in this pandemic, this thing is
\nis is not just the same situation and going away and
\nsort of just controlled by social distancing. This is a fallacy. The reason that this is
\ngone is because it’s going away, not because of social distancing. And so, in fact,
\nwhen you look at the original purpose of the lockdown and the social distancing,
\nit was to flatten the curve that didn’t change the area under the curve. I
\nmean, for your students, I think they understand what I’m talking about. I don’t say this in a in a TV
\ninterview. Right. But you know, the area under the curve, meaning the number of deaths per
\nday, that was never changing. There is a natural curve here
\nthat we’re talking about. The only flattening of a curve had to do
\nwith stopping hospital overcrowding. This disease is going away.
\nIt’s not that it might not recur. It’s not that we don’t have to protect certain populations.
\nIf my father or mother were in a nursing home right now, I would have I would have
\npulled them out. But I would have insisted early on that no one can enter
\nwithout being cleared of infection. And so I’m still nervous about that group,
\nbecause you should always be. And the virus still exists, there’s no question. But but the reality
\nis that, you know, this is sort of going away as hoped. And honestly,
\nas expected. And it’s just not the same situation that we were in before it. The
\nfuture is, of course, somewhat unpredictable, but not wholly. We don’t throw away decades
\nof medical science and establish the immunology and virology because we’re nervous.
\nI mean, that’s just not how it works here. What we did, we did, unfortunately.
\nScott, thank you so much for all the work you’ve been doing. And thanks for joining us today. Appreciate the opportunity.
\nThanks for listening to Policy McCombs.<\/p>\n"},"episode_featured_image":false,"episode_player_image":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/cepa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/21\/2021\/05\/SC_PolicyMcCombs_Art-scaled.jpg","download_link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/cepa\/podcast-download\/551\/scott-atlas-covid-19-interview.mp3","player_link":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/cepa\/podcast-player\/551\/scott-atlas-covid-19-interview.mp3","audio_player":null,"episode_data":{"playerMode":"light","subscribeUrls":{"apple_podcasts":{"key":"apple_podcasts","url":"","label":"Apple Podcasts","class":"apple_podcasts","icon":"apple-podcasts.png"},"google_play":{"key":"google_play","url":"","label":"Google Play","class":"google_play","icon":"google-play.png"},"google_podcasts":{"key":"google_podcasts","url":"","label":"Google Podcasts","class":"google_podcasts","icon":"google-podcasts.png"},"spotify":{"key":"spotify","url":"","label":"Spotify","class":"spotify","icon":"spotify.png"},"itunes":{"key":"itunes","url":"","label":"iTunes","class":"itunes","icon":"itunes.png"}},"rssFeedUrl":"https:\/\/podcasts.la.utexas.edu\/cepa\/feed\/podcast\/policymccombs","embedCode":"Scott Atlas \u2013\u00a0COVID-19 Interview<\/a><\/blockquote>