Hoover Institution senior fellow Dr. Scott Atlas said on Monday that the response to the coronavirus can not be based on fear or catostrophic projections but instead science and logic. In an interview on FOX News, Atlas told Martha MacCallum that the COVID-19 fatality rate is much lower than what the models projected. Atlas also disagreed with a new model that predicts 134,000 Americans will die from the virus by August 4th.
"We should look at the evidence," Atlas said. "We don't need to rely on hypothetical projections. We have a ton of evidence. And the evidence is consistent all over the world that we know the fatality rate is much lower than what the models were based on originally. We know that the curves have been flattened and the curves to note are not the numbers of cases."
"In certain work settings, particularly this, there are going to be regulations, new regulations, and I'm for them, about sanitization, about hygiene," he said. "You go to the grocery store, they have big plastic shields up.
"There is a new standard evolving for this but you can't really make policy based on fear and catastrophic projections and this is another thing that's actually harming, even things like the food supply change. It's the fear that is the real contagion here. The fear is the problem," Atlas said.
Atlas also arged that there is no scientific evidence to continue to keep schools closed as people under 18 have very little risk of contracting the virus.
"We know it's factually true and proven all over the world that people under 18 have very little, if any, risk of a serious illness and essentially no risk of dying," Atlas said. "There is no reason to separate people in the age groups 0 to 18, six feet apart. It's just that there's no scientific evidence, really, to do that. There's no evidence really whatsoever to continue to have these schools closed."
MARTHA MACCALLUM: Do these rising models change anything about your headlines that we need to stop panicking about this?
DR. SCOTT ATLAS, HOOVER INSTITUTION: No, in fact they underscore some of the very things I was saying and they reveal a lot of the same sort of misconceptions about models. First of all models change all the time and we know that the models have been wildly swinging around like crazy. We should remember that when we look at another new model or hypothetical projection.
The second point about the models is, this very model, two days ago had 72,300 and some deaths in the U.S. If you actually look at what they were saying, the range was 59,000-113,000 deaths. You look at the model they just came in with and that range is between 90-some-thousand and 215,000. There is a huge range of what they are saying. None of these models and no legitimate model talked about a specific number that's meant to be the prediction. That's the second point.
The third, much more important point here is nothing has changed here. We should look at the evidence. We don't need to rely on hypothetical projections. We have a ton of evidence. And the evidence is consistent all over the world that we know the fatality rate is much lower than what the models were based on originally. We know that the curves have been flattened and the curves to note are not the numbers of cases. The only curves that count are the deaths per day and the hospitalizations per day. And when you take all of that into account, including the very important things that are catastrophically destructive about total isolation. You come to the same conclusion that I and many, many people all over the world support.