Stephen Macedo

To adopt policies which always involve trade-offs across values, risks, how much are we willing to give up to not visit an elderly relative in the hospital, to not have a funeral, to not be allowed to attend church on Sunday. These sorts of public questions don't have scientific answers.

To adopt policies which always involve trade-offs across values, risks, how much are we willing to give up to not visit an elderly relative in the hospital, to not have a funeral, to not be allowed to attend church on Sunday. These sorts of public questions don't have scientific answers.

They're value judgments about which ordinary people have a certain expertise about their own lives and what matters to them. And they should have been involved as well in the deliberation about these measures. Mm-hmm.

They're value judgments about which ordinary people have a certain expertise about their own lives and what matters to them. And they should have been involved as well in the deliberation about these measures. Mm-hmm.

Well, they were three scientists from Stanford University, Harvard University, and Oxford, well-known, well-established scientists with excellent publication records. They were concerned about the costs of the closures. They were concerned about the disproportionate burdens being borne by essential workers and schoolchildren. And they attempted to start a conversation about

Well, they were three scientists from Stanford University, Harvard University, and Oxford, well-known, well-established scientists with excellent publication records. They were concerned about the costs of the closures. They were concerned about the disproportionate burdens being borne by essential workers and schoolchildren. And they attempted to start a conversation about

They were arguing that rather than keeping the whole of society closed, rather than keeping schools closed for children at very little risk from COVID, we should be focusing protection on the vulnerable parts of the population.

They were arguing that rather than keeping the whole of society closed, rather than keeping schools closed for children at very little risk from COVID, we should be focusing protection on the vulnerable parts of the population.

And by October 4th, when that document was published, we had good evidence to suggest to know that there was highly uneven vulnerability across the population, age being the principal factor.

And by October 4th, when that document was published, we had good evidence to suggest to know that there was highly uneven vulnerability across the population, age being the principal factor.

Much, much higher. And what they suggested was focusing protection on the vulnerable. And how did they suggest doing that?

Much, much higher. And what they suggested was focusing protection on the vulnerable. And how did they suggest doing that?

Well, when the declaration came out a few days later, the great band of people were charged with adopting a herd immunity strategy to let the virus rip through the population. And that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives. We have now the email by Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, in effect, Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss.

Well, when the declaration came out a few days later, the great band of people were charged with adopting a herd immunity strategy to let the virus rip through the population. And that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives. We have now the email by Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, in effect, Dr. Anthony Fauci's boss.

He said in his email to Dr. Fauci and others, the document from the three fringe epidemiologists is getting a lot of attention. Even a co-signature from a Nobel Prize winner, people were signing this declaration online. And he said there needs to be a quick and devastating takedown.

He said in his email to Dr. Fauci and others, the document from the three fringe epidemiologists is getting a lot of attention. Even a co-signature from a Nobel Prize winner, people were signing this declaration online. And he said there needs to be a quick and devastating takedown.

Well, there's some evidence that the non-pharmaceutical interventions of various sorts, lockdown measures, school closures, etc., reduce somewhat the spread of the virus. But even the optimistic reports that emphasize that and call that success do not show evidence of significantly reduced death. So the virus evidently spread efficiently enough so that even if

Well, there's some evidence that the non-pharmaceutical interventions of various sorts, lockdown measures, school closures, etc., reduce somewhat the spread of the virus. But even the optimistic reports that emphasize that and call that success do not show evidence of significantly reduced death. So the virus evidently spread efficiently enough so that even if

the spread of infection could be reduced, say, 15%, that did not yield significant benefits in terms of death and disease.

the spread of infection could be reduced, say, 15%, that did not yield significant benefits in terms of death and disease.