0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine, Health Policy, and Economics at Stanford University.
0
SPEAKER_00
Please allow me to say a few words about lockdowns and the blinding, destructive effects of arrogance on leadership, especially in the space of policy and politics.
0
SPEAKER_00
Jay Bhattacharya is the co-author of the now famous Great Barrington Declaration, a one-page document that in October 2020 made a case against the effectiveness of lockdowns.
0
SPEAKER_00
Most of this podcast conversation is about the ideas related to this document.
0
SPEAKER_00
And so, let me say a few things here about what troubles me.
0
SPEAKER_00
Those who advocate for lockdowns as a policy often ignore the quiet suffering of millions that it results in, which includes economic pain, loss of jobs that give meaning and pride in the face of uncertainty, the increase in suicide and suicidal ideation, and in general, the fear and anger that arises from the powerlessness forced onto the populace by the self-proclaimed elites and experts.
0
SPEAKER_00
Many folks whose job is unaffected by the lockdowns talk down to the masses about which path forward is right and which is wrong.
0
SPEAKER_00
What troubles me most is this very lack of empathy among the policymakers for the common man and, in general, for people unlike themselves.
0
SPEAKER_00
The landscape of suffering is vast and must be fully considered in calculating the response to the pandemic with humility and with rigorous, open-minded scientific debate.
0
SPEAKER_00
Jay and I talk about the email from Francis Collins to Anthony Fauci that called Jay and his two co-authors fringe epidemiologists and also called for a devastating published takedown of their ideas.
0
SPEAKER_00
These words from Francis broke my heart.
0
SPEAKER_00
I understand them.
0
SPEAKER_00
I can even steelman them.
0
SPEAKER_00
But nevertheless, on balance, they show to me a failure of leadership.
0
SPEAKER_00
Leadership in a pandemic is hard, which is why great leaders are remembered by history.
0
SPEAKER_00
They are rare, they stand out, and they give me hope.
0
SPEAKER_00
Also, this whole mess inspires me on my small individual level to do the right thing, in the face of conformity, despite the long odds.
0
SPEAKER_00
I talked to Francis Collins.
0
SPEAKER_00
I talked to Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO.
0
SPEAKER_00
I also talked and will continue to talk with people like Jay and other dissenting voices that challenge the mainstream narratives and those in the seats of power.
0
SPEAKER_00
I hope to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses in their ideas with respect and empathy, but also with guts and skill.
0
SPEAKER_00
The skill part I hope to improve on over time.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I do believe that conversation and an open mind is the way out of this.
0
SPEAKER_00
And finally, as I ve said in the past, I value love and integrity far, far above money, fame, and power.
0
SPEAKER_00
Those latter three are all ephemeral.
0
SPEAKER_00
They slip through the fingers of anyone who tries to hold on and leave behind an empty shell of a human being.
0
SPEAKER_00
I prefer to die a man who lived by principles that nobody could shake and a man who added a bit of love to the world.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
First is Athletic Greens, the all-in-one nutrition drink I drink twice a day.
0
SPEAKER_00
Second is InsideTracker, a service I use to track my biological data.
0
SPEAKER_00
Third is Coinbase, a platform I use to buy cryptocurrency.
0
SPEAKER_00
Fourth is Roka, my favorite sunglasses and prescription glasses.
0
SPEAKER_00
And fifth is Indeed, a hiring website.
0
SPEAKER_00
So the choices, health, money, style, or teamwork.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff, maybe you will too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by Athletic Greens and its new renamed AG1 drink, which is an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
0
SPEAKER_00
It replaced the multivitamin from me and went far beyond that with 75 vitamins and minerals.
0
SPEAKER_00
It has a bunch of healthy stuff in it and they keep innovating on it.
0
SPEAKER_00
It keeps iterating.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like Tesla Autopilot keeps getting new over-the-air software updates.
0
SPEAKER_00
Same with the AG1, Athletic Greens, they keep getting updates to their formula.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I love when science leads to updates and so you can just rely that the thing you re getting month after month after month is going to have the latest and the greatest stuff in it.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the first thing I drink every day.
0
SPEAKER_00
I drink it twice a day now and I rely on it as the nutritional base for
0
SPEAKER_00
All the crazy stuff I do diet-wise and exercise-wise and all the mental crazy long hours of deep work and so on.
0
SPEAKER_00
They ll give you one month supply of fish oil when you sign up to athleticgreens.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s athleticgreens.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by InsideTracker, a service I use to track biological data.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have a bunch of plans, most of which include blood tests that give you a lot of information that you can then make decisions based on.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have algorithms that analyze your blood data, DNA data, and fitness tracker data to provide you with a clear picture of what s going on inside you, to offer you science-backed recommendations for positive diet and lifestyle changes.
0
SPEAKER_00
The great Andrew Huberman talks a lot about it.
0
SPEAKER_00
David Sinclair talks about it.
0
SPEAKER_00
He s talked about it with me on the podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
In general, I love the idea of collecting biological data and using that data to make decisions, personalized decisions.
0
SPEAKER_00
It feels like the future.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s like an obvious idea that we all should be doing.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, for a limited time, you can get 25% off the entire InsideTracker store if you go to insidetracker.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s insidetracker.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Make lifestyle, make health decisions based on real data grounded to your biological organism, which is unique.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Coinbase, which is a trusted and easy to use platform to buy, sell, and spend cryptocurrency.
0
SPEAKER_00
I use it and love it.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano, Dogecoin, and all the most popular digital currencies.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a great way to try all these different currencies, to learn about them, to diversify.
0
SPEAKER_00
I mean, also from the interface perspective, you know, the implementation of how everything is handled, both in terms of how responsive it is, how easy it is to navigate, how easy it is to log in day after day, all those kinds of things.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just implemented really well.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, go to coinbase.com slash lex for a limited time.
0
SPEAKER_00
New users can get $5 in free Bitcoin when you sign up today at coinbase.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s coinbase.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m pretty sure I m going to talk to the CEO soon.
0
SPEAKER_00
I look forward to that conversation.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s an incredible service.
0
SPEAKER_00
I don t care that they re a sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just I ve been a fan for a long time.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think they ve been a big part of bringing cryptocurrency into the mainstream.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Roka, the makers of glasses and sunglasses that I love wearing for their design, feel, and innovation on materials, optics, and grip.
0
SPEAKER_00
Roka was started by two all-American swimmers from Stanford, and it was born out of an obsession with performance.
0
SPEAKER_00
I like to wear these stylish glasses in all kinds of conditions.
0
SPEAKER_00
Whether I m wearing a suit, in the heat in the summer I was running in these glasses.
0
SPEAKER_00
Also, it s not getting cold in the winter, I can wear them.
0
SPEAKER_00
I like the minimalism.
0
SPEAKER_00
I like the classy, functional look and feel of these glasses.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just, it s perfection.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s designed to be active in.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like I said, it s extremely lightweight, but the grip is comfortable and strong.
0
SPEAKER_00
The style, like I said, is classy.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s very, um, I don t know, James Bond.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, check them out for both prescription glasses and sunglasses at Roka.com and enter code LEX to save 20% on your first order.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s Roka.com and enter code LEX.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Indeed, a hiring website.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ve used them as part of many hiring efforts I ve done for the teams I ve led in the past.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have tools like Indeed Instant Matching, giving you quality candidates whose resumes on Indeed fit your job description immediately.
0
SPEAKER_00
You may hear in my voice a bit of a melancholy tone.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ve just been going through a bunch of difficult things in my life and it s just been rough.
0
SPEAKER_00
One of the things that gives me a lot of, I don t know, hope, just on a basic human level, maybe strength is the better word, is having a great team of people around me.
0
SPEAKER_00
And not necessarily in terms of productivity, but just as human beings.
0
SPEAKER_00
You spend a lot of time with the people on your team, and so you should do a great job, I guess, hiring them and use the best tools for the job.
0
SPEAKER_00
I happen to be part of a great team already, so I m really proud of that.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m really grateful for that.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, right now, get a free $75 sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post at indeed.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get it at indeed.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Terms and conditions apply.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to indeed.com slash Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast, and here is my conversation with Jay Bhattacharya.
0
SPEAKER_00
To our best understanding today, how deadly is COVID?
0
SPEAKER_00
Do we have a good measure for this very question?
0
SPEAKER_01
So the best evidence for COVID, the deadliness of COVID, comes from a whole series of seroprevalence studies.
0
SPEAKER_01
Seroprevalence studies are these studies of antibody prevalence in the population at large.
0
SPEAKER_01
I was part of the very first set of seroprevalence studies, one in Santa Clara County, one in L.A.
0
SPEAKER_01
County, and one with Major League Baseball around the U.S.
0
SPEAKER_00
If I may just pause you for a second, if people don t know what serology is and seroprevalence, it does sound like you say zero prevalence.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s not, it s sero and serology is antibodies.
0
SPEAKER_00
So it s a survey that counts the number of antibodies.
0
SPEAKER_00
Specific to COVID, yes.
0
SPEAKER_00
People that have antibodies,
0
SPEAKER_00
specific to COVID, which perhaps shows an indication that they likely have had COVID, and therefore this is a way to study how many people in the population have been exposed to or have had COVID.
0
SPEAKER_01
Exactly.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, exactly.
0
SPEAKER_01
So the idea is that
0
SPEAKER_01
We don t know exactly the number of people with COVID just by counting the people that present themselves with symptoms of COVID.
0
SPEAKER_01
COVID has, it turns out, a very wide range of symptoms possible, ranging from no symptoms at all to this deadly viral pneumonia that s killed so many people.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the problem is like, if you just count the number of cases, the people who have very few symptoms often don t show up for testing.
0
SPEAKER_01
We just don t, they re outside of the can of public health.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so it s really hard to know the answer to your question without understanding how many people are infected, because you can probably tell the number of deaths, even though there s some controversy over that.
0
SPEAKER_01
So the numerator is possible, but the denominator is much harder.
0
SPEAKER_00
How much controversy is there about the death?
0
SPEAKER_00
We re going to go on a million tangents.
0
SPEAKER_00
I have a million questions.
0
SPEAKER_00
So one, I love data so much, but I m almost tuned out paying attention to COVID data because I feel like I m walking on shaky ground.
0
SPEAKER_00
I don t know who to trust.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you can comment on different sources of data, different kinds of data.
0
SPEAKER_00
the death one, that seems like a really important one.
0
SPEAKER_00
Can we trust the reported deaths associated with COVID or is it just a giant messy thing that mixed up and then there s this kind of stories about hospitals being incentivized to report a death as COVID death?
0
SPEAKER_01
So there s some truth in some of that.
0
SPEAKER_01
Let me just talk about the incentive.
0
SPEAKER_01
So in the United States, we passed this CARES Act that was aimed at making sure hospital systems didn t go bankrupt in the early days of the pandemic.
0
SPEAKER_01
A couple of things they did.
0
SPEAKER_01
One was they provided incentives to treat COVID patients, tens of thousands of dollars extra per COVID patient.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the other thing they did is they gave a 20% bump to Medicare payments for elderly patients who are treated with COVID.
0
SPEAKER_01
The idea is that there s more expensive to treat them, I guess, in the early days.
0
SPEAKER_01
So that did provide an incentive to sort of have a lot of COVID patients in the hospital because your financial success of the hospital or at least not the lack of financial ruin depended on having many COVID patients.
0
SPEAKER_01
The other thing on the death certificates is that reporting of deaths is a separate issue.
0
SPEAKER_01
I don t know that there s a financial incentive there, but there is this sort of like complicated, you know, when you fill out a death certificate,
0
SPEAKER_01
for a patient with a lot of conditions, like let s say a patient has diabetes, while that diabetes could lead to heart failure, you have a heart attack, heart failure, your lungs fill up, then you get COVID, and you die.
0
SPEAKER_01
So what do you write on the death certificate?
0
SPEAKER_01
Was it COVID that killed you?
0
SPEAKER_01
Was it the lungs filling up?
0
SPEAKER_01
Was it the heart failure?
0
SPEAKER_01
Was it the diabetes?
0
SPEAKER_01
It s really difficult to like disentangle.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I think a lot of times what s happened is people have erred on the side of signing as COVID.
0
SPEAKER_01
Now, what s the evidence of this?
0
SPEAKER_01
There s been a couple of audits of death certificates in places like Santa Clara County, where I live, in Alameda County, California, where they carefully went through the death certificates and said, okay, is this reasonable to say this was actually COVID or was COVID incidental?
0
SPEAKER_01
And they found that about 25%, 20-25% of the deaths were more likely incidental than directly due to COVID.
0
SPEAKER_01
I personally don t get too excited about this.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s a philosophical question, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
Ultimately, what kills you?
0
SPEAKER_01
Which is an odd thing to say if you re not in medicine, but really, it s almost always multifactorial.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s not always just the bus hits you.
0
SPEAKER_01
The bus hits you, you get a brain bleed.
0
SPEAKER_01
Was the brain bleed that killed you?
0
SPEAKER_01
Would it have burst anyway?
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you know, the bus hits you, killed you, right?
0
SPEAKER_00
The way you die is a philosophical question, but it s also a sociological and psychological question, because it seems like
0
SPEAKER_00
every single person who s passed away over the past couple years, kind of the first question that comes to mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
Was it COVID?
0
SPEAKER_00
Not just because you re trying to be political, but just in your mind.
0
SPEAKER_01
No, I think there s a psychological reason for this, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, we spent the better part of at least a half century in the United States not worried too much about infectious diseases.
0
SPEAKER_01
The notion was we d essentially conquered them.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was something that happens in faraway places to other people.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that s true for much of the developed world.
0
SPEAKER_01
Life expectancies were going up for decades and decades.
0
SPEAKER_01
And for the first time in living memory, we have a disease that can kill us.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think we re effectively evolved to fear that, like the panic centers of our brain, the lizard part of our brain takes over.
0
SPEAKER_01
And our central focus has been avoiding this one risk.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so it s not surprising that people, when they re filling out death certificates or thinking about what led to the death, this most salient thing that s in the front of everyone s brain would jump to the top.
0
SPEAKER_00
And we can t ignore this very deep psychological thing when we consider what people say on the internet, what people say to each other, what people write in scientific papers, what, everything.
0
SPEAKER_00
It feels like when COVID has been, you know,
0
SPEAKER_00
has been brought onto this world, everything changed in the way people feel about each other, just the way they communicate with each other.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think the level of emotion involved, I think in many people, it brought out the worst in them.
0
SPEAKER_00
for sometimes short periods of time, and sometimes it was always therapeutic, like you were waiting to get out the darkest parts of you, just to say, if you re angry at something in this world, I m going to say it now.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I think that s probably talking to some deep, primal thing that fear we have for maladies of all different kinds, and then when that fear is aroused and all the deepest emotions, it s like a Freudian
1
SPEAKER_01
in a psychotherapy session, but across the world.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s something that psychologists are gonna have a field day with for a generation, trying to understand.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think what you say is right, but piled on top of that is also this sort of
1
SPEAKER_01
this impetus to empathy, to empathize, compassion toward others, essentially militarized, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
So I m protecting you by some actions, and those actions, if I don t do them, if you don t do them, well, that must mean you hate me.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s created this social tension that I ve never seen before, and we have started, we looked at each other as if we were just simply
1
SPEAKER_01
sources of germs rather than people to get to know, people to enjoy, people to get to learn from.
1
SPEAKER_01
It colored basically almost every human interaction for every human on the planet.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, the basic common humanity.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s like you can wear a mask, you can stand far away, but the love you have for each other when you re looking into each other s eyes, that was dissipating by region too.
1
SPEAKER_00
I ve experienced having traveled quite a bit throughout this.
1
SPEAKER_00
time, it was really sad.
1
SPEAKER_00
Even people that are really close together, just the way they stood, the way they looked at each other, and it made me feel for a moment that the fabric that connects all of us is more fragile than I thought.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, if you walk down the street, or if you ever, if you did this during COVID, I m sure you had this experience, where you walk down the street, if you re not wearing a mask, or even if you are, people will jump off the sidewalk that you walk past them, as if you re poison.
1
SPEAKER_01
Even though the data are that COVID spreads indifferently outdoors, if at all, really, outdoors.
1
SPEAKER_01
But it s not simply a biological or infectious disease phenomenon, epidemiological, it s a,
1
SPEAKER_01
It is a change in the way humans treat each other.
1
SPEAKER_01
I hope temporary.
1
SPEAKER_00
I do want to say on the flip side of that, so I was mostly in Boston, Massachusetts when the pandemic broke out.
1
SPEAKER_00
I think that s where I was, yeah.
1
SPEAKER_00
And then I came here to Austin, Texas to visit my now good friend Joe Rogan, and he was the first person
1
SPEAKER_00
without pause, this wasn t a political statement, this was anything, just walked toward me and gave me a big hug and say, it s great to see you.
1
SPEAKER_00
And I can t tell you how great it felt because I, in that moment, realized the absence of that connection back in Boston over just a couple of months.
1
SPEAKER_00
And we ll talk about it more, but it s tragic to think about
1
SPEAKER_00
that distancing, that dissolution of common humanity at scale, what kind of impact it has on society, just across the board, political division, and just in the quiet of your own mind, in the privacy of your own home, the depression, the sadness, the loneliness that leads to suicide.
1
SPEAKER_00
and forget suicide, just low-key suffering.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, no, I think that s the suffering, that isolation.
1
SPEAKER_01
We re not meant to live alone.
1
SPEAKER_01
We re not meant to live apart from one another.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s, of course, the ideology of lockdown is to make people live apart, alone, isolated, so that we don t spread diseases to each other, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
But we re not actually designed as a species to live that way.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that, what you re describing, I think, if everyone s honest with themselves, have felt, especially in places where lockdowns have been sort of very militantly enforced, has felt deep into their core.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, if I could just return to the question of deaths.
1
SPEAKER_00
You said that the data isn t perfect because we need these kind of seroprevalence surveys to understand how many cases there were to determine the rate of deaths.
1
SPEAKER_00
And we need to have a strong footing in the number of deaths.
1
SPEAKER_00
But if we assume that the number of deaths is approximately correct, like what s your sense, what kind of statements
1
SPEAKER_00
can we say about the deadliness of COVID across different demographics, maybe not in a political way or in the current way, but when history looks back at this moment of time, 50 years from now, 100 years from now, the way we look at the pandemic 100 years ago,
1
SPEAKER_01
what will they say about the deadliness of COVID?
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think the deadliness of COVID depends on not just the virus itself, but who it infects.
1
SPEAKER_01
So probably the most important thing about the deadliness of COVID is this steep age gradient in the mortality rate.
1
SPEAKER_01
So according to these seroprevalence studies that have been done, now hundreds of them, mostly from before vaccination, because vaccination also reduces the mortality risk of COVID,
1
SPEAKER_01
The seroprevalence studies suggest that the risk of death, if you re, say, over the age of 70, is very high, you know, 5% if you get COVID.
1
SPEAKER_01
If you re under the age of 70, it s lower, 0.05, but there s not a single sharp cutoff.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s more like, I have a rule of thumb that I use, so if you re 50
1
SPEAKER_01
say the infection fatality rate from COVID is 0.2% according to the seroprevalence data.
1
SPEAKER_01
That means 99.8% survival if you re 50.
1
SPEAKER_01
And for every seven years of age above that, double it.
1
SPEAKER_01
Every seven years of age below that, halve it.
1
SPEAKER_01
So a 57-year-old would have a 0.4%.
1
SPEAKER_01
Mortality, a 64-year-old would have a 0.8% and so on.
1
SPEAKER_01
And if you have a severe chronic disease like diabetes or if you re morbidly obese, it s like adding seven years to your life.
1
SPEAKER_01
And this is for unvaccinated folks?
1
SPEAKER_01
This is unvaccinated before Delta also.
1
SPEAKER_00
Are there a lot of people that will be listening to this with PhDs at the end of their name that would disagree with the 99.8, would you say?
1
SPEAKER_01
So I think there s some disagreement over this.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the disagreement is about the quality of the seroprevalence studies that were conducted.
1
SPEAKER_01
So as I said earlier, I was a senior investigator in three different seroprevalence studies very early in the epidemic.
1
SPEAKER_01
I view them as very high-quality studies.
1
SPEAKER_01
In Santa Clara County, what we did is we used a test kit that we obtained from someone who works in Major League Baseball, actually.
1
SPEAKER_01
He d ordered these test kits very early, in March 2020, that very accurately measures antibodies in the bloodstream.
1
SPEAKER_01
The test kits were approved by the, had a EUA by the Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, sort of shortly after we did this.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it had a very low false positive rate.
1
SPEAKER_01
False positive means if you don t have these COVID antibodies in your bloodstream, the kit shows up positive anyways.
1
SPEAKER_01
That turns out to happen about 0.5% of the time.
1
SPEAKER_01
And based on studies, a very large number of studies looking at
1
SPEAKER_01
blood from 2018, you try it against this kit, and, you know, 0.5% of the time, 2018, there shouldn t be antibodies there, so, to COVID, so if it turns positive, it s a false positive, it s 0.5% of the time.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then, you know, like a false negative rate, about 10%, 12%, something like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t remember the exact number.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the false positive rate s the important thing there, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
So you have a population in March 2020 or April 2020 with very low fraction of patients having been exposed to COVID.
1
SPEAKER_01
You don t know how much, but low.
1
SPEAKER_01
Even a small false positive rate could end up
1
SPEAKER_01
by seeing you study quite a bit.
1
SPEAKER_01
But there s a formula to adjust for that.
1
SPEAKER_01
You can adjust for the false positive rate, false negative rate.
1
SPEAKER_01
We did that adjustment and those studies found in a community population, so leaving aside people in nursing homes who have a higher death rate from COVID,
1
SPEAKER_01
the death rate was .2% in Santa Clara County and in L.A.
1
SPEAKER_01
County.
1
SPEAKER_00
Across all these groups in the community, community meaning just like regular folks?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so that s actually a real important question too.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the Santa Clara study, we did this Facebook sampling scheme.
1
SPEAKER_01
which is, I mean, not the ideal thing, but it was very difficult to get a random sample during lockdown, where we put out an ad on Facebook soliciting people to volunteer for the study, a randomly selected set of people.
1
SPEAKER_01
We were hoping to get a random selection of people from Santa Clara County, but the people who tended to volunteer were from the richer parts of the county.
1
SPEAKER_01
I had Stanford professors writing, begging to be in the study because they wanted to know their antibody levels.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we did some adjustment for that.
1
SPEAKER_01
In L.A.
1
SPEAKER_01
County, we hired a firm that had a preexisting representative sample of L.A.
1
SPEAKER_01
County.
1
SPEAKER_01
But it didn t include nursing homes, it didn t include people in jail, things like that, it didn t include the homeless populations.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it s representative of a community dwelling population.
1
SPEAKER_01
both of those, and there we found that both in L.A.
1
SPEAKER_01
County and Santa Clara County in April 2020, something like 40 to 50 times more infections than cases in both places.
1
SPEAKER_01
So for every case that had been reported to the public health authorities, we found, you know, 40 or 50 other infections, people with antibodies in their blood.
1
SPEAKER_01
that suggested that they d had COVID and recovered.
1
SPEAKER_01
So people were not reporting or severe, at least in those days, under-reporting.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there was, you know, there s testing problem.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there weren t so many tests available.
1
SPEAKER_01
People didn t know.
1
SPEAKER_01
A lot of them, we asked a set of questions about the symptoms they d faced.
1
SPEAKER_01
And most of them said they faced no symptoms, or at the most, 30, 40% of them said faced no symptoms.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, even these days, how many people report that they get COVID when they get COVID?
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay, have those numbers, that 0.2%, has that approximately held up over time?
1
SPEAKER_01
That is, so if Professor John Ioannidis, who s a colleague of mine at Stanford, is a world expert in meta-analysis, probably the most cited scientist on Earth, I think, at least living, he did a meta-analysis of now 100 or more of these seroprevalence studies.
1
SPEAKER_01
And what he found was that that 0.2% is roughly the worldwide number.
1
SPEAKER_01
In fact, I think he cites this lower number, 0.15%, as the median infection fatality rate worldwide.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we did these studies and it generated an enormous amount of blowback by people who thought that the infection fatality rate is much higher.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there s some controversy over the quality of some of the other studies that are done.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so there are some people who look at this same literature and say, well, the lower quality studies tend to have lower IFRs.
1
SPEAKER_01
The higher quality studies.
1
SPEAKER_01
Oh, infection fatality, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
I apologize.
1
SPEAKER_01
I do this in lectures too.
1
SPEAKER_01
I apologize.
1
SPEAKER_00
And I m going to rudely interrupt you and ask for the basics sometimes, if it s okay.
1
SPEAKER_01
No, of course.
1
SPEAKER_01
So these higher quality studies, they say, tend to produce higher, but the problem is that if you want a global infection fatality rate, you need to get seroprevalence studies from everywhere, even in places that don t necessarily have the infrastructure set up to produce very, very high quality studies.
1
SPEAKER_01
And in poor places in the world,
1
SPEAKER_01
places like Africa, the infection fatality rate is incredibly low.
1
SPEAKER_01
And in some richer places, like New York City, the infection fatality rate is much higher.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s a range of IFRs, not a single number.
1
SPEAKER_01
This sometimes surprises people, because they think, well, it s a virus, it should have the same properties no matter where it goes.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the virus,
1
SPEAKER_01
kills or infects or hurts in interaction with the host.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the properties of both the host and the virus combine to produce the outcome.
1
SPEAKER_01
But you also mentioned the environment, too?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, I m thinking mainly just about the person.
1
SPEAKER_01
In fact, if I m gonna think about it, the most simplest way to think about it is age.
1
SPEAKER_01
Age is the single most important risk factor.
1
SPEAKER_01
So older places are going to have a higher IFR.
1
SPEAKER_01
than younger places.
1
SPEAKER_01
Africa, 3% of Africa is over 65.
1
SPEAKER_01
So in some sense, it s not surprising that they have a low infection fatality rate.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that s one way you would explain the difference between Africa and New York City in terms of the fatality rate is the age, the average age.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and especially in the early days of the epidemic in New York City, the older populations living in nursing homes were differentially infected.
1
SPEAKER_01
based on, because of policies that were adopted, right, to send COVID-infected patients back to nursing homes to keep hospitals empty.
1
SPEAKER_01
What do you mean by differentially infected?
1
SPEAKER_01
The policy that you adopt determines who is most exposed.
1
SPEAKER_00
Right.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that s what I mean by differential.
1
SPEAKER_00
The policy, it s the person that matters,
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it s not like the virus just kinda doesn t care.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the policy determines the nature of the interaction and there s also, I mean, there is some contribution from the environment, different regions have different proximity maybe of people interacting or the dynamics of the way they interact.
1
SPEAKER_01
I m like, if you have situations where there s lots of intergenerational
1
SPEAKER_01
interactions, then you have a very different risk profile than if you have societies that are where generations are more separate from one another.
1
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so let me just finish, we re real fast about this.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you have, in New York, you have a population that was infected in the early days that was very likely going to die, but had a much higher likelihood of dying if infected.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so New York City had a higher IFR, especially in the early days, than like Africa has had.
1
SPEAKER_01
The other thing is treatment, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
So the treatments that we adopted in the early days of the epidemic, I think actually may have exacerbated the risk of death.
1
SPEAKER_01
So like using ventilators, like the over-reliance on ventilators is what I m primarily thinking of, but I can think of other things.
1
SPEAKER_01
But that also, we ve learned over time how better to manage patients with the disease.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you have all those things combined, so that s where the controversy over this number is.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, New York City also is a central hub for those who tweet.
1
SPEAKER_00
and those who write powerful stories and narratives in article form.
1
SPEAKER_00
And I remember there s quite dramatic stories about doctors in the hospitals and these kinds of things.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, there s very serious, very dramatic, very tragic deaths going on always in hospitals.
1
SPEAKER_00
Those stories, I mean,
1
SPEAKER_00
loved ones losing each other on a deathbed, that s always tragic.
1
SPEAKER_00
And you can always write a hell of a good story about that, and you should, about the loss of loved ones.
1
SPEAKER_00
But they were doing it pretty well, I would say, over this kind of dramatic deaths.
1
SPEAKER_00
And so in response to that, it s very unpleasant to hear, even to consider the possibility that the death rate is not as high as you might feel.
1
SPEAKER_01
I was surprised by the reaction, both by regular people and also the scientific community in response to those studies, those early studies in April of 2020.
1
SPEAKER_01
To me, they were studies.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, they re the kinds of, not exactly the kinds of work I ve worked on all my life, but kind of like the kind of, you know, you write a paper and you get responses from your fellow scientists and you change the paper to improve it, and you hopefully learn something from it.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, but to push back, it s just a study.
1
SPEAKER_00
But there s some studies, and this is kind of interesting, because I ve received similar pushback on other topics.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s some studies that, if wrong, might have wide-ranging detrimental effects on society.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that s the way they would perceive the studies.
1
SPEAKER_00
If you say the death rate is lower, and you end up, as you often do in science, realizing that nope, that was a flaw in the way the study was conducted, or we re just not representative of a broader population, and then you realize the death rate is much higher, that might be very damaging.
1
SPEAKER_00
in people s view.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that s probably where the scientific community sort of, to steel man the kind of response, is that s where they felt like, you know, there s some findings where you better be damn sure before you kind of report them.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean, we were pretty sure we were right, and it turns out we were right.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, we released the Santa Clara study via this open science process and this server called MedArchive.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s designed for releasing studies that have not yet been peer-reviewed in order to garner comment from the scientists before peer review.
1
SPEAKER_01
The LA County
2
SPEAKER_01
study, we went through this traditional peer review process and got it published in the Journal of American Medical Association sometime in like July, I think, I forget the date, of 2020.
2
SPEAKER_01
The Santa Clara study released in April of 2020 in this sort of working paper archive.
2
SPEAKER_01
The reason was that we felt we had an obligation.
2
SPEAKER_01
We had a result that we thought was quite important and we wanted to tell the scientific community about it and also tell the world about it.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we wanted to get feedback.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s part of the purpose of sending it to these kinds of places.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think a lot of the problem is that when people think about published science, they think of it as automatically true.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if it goes through peer review, it s automatically true.
2
SPEAKER_01
If it hasn t gone through peer review, it s not automatically true.
2
SPEAKER_01
And especially in medicine, we re not used to having this access to pre-peer reviewed work.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, in economics, actually, that s quite normal.
2
SPEAKER_01
You
2
SPEAKER_01
It takes years to get something published.
2
SPEAKER_01
So there s a very active debate over or discussion about papers before they re peer reviewed in this sort of working paper way.
2
SPEAKER_01
Much less normal or much newer in medicine.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so I think part of that, the perception about what process happens in open science when you release a study, that got people confused.
2
SPEAKER_01
And you re right, it was a very important result.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because we had just locked the world down in middle of March.
2
SPEAKER_01
with, I think, catastrophic results.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if that study was right, if our study was right, that meant we d made a mistake.
2
SPEAKER_01
And not because the death rate was low.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s actually not the key thing there.
2
SPEAKER_01
The key thing is that we had adopted these policies, these test and trace policies, these policies, these lockdown policies aimed at suppressing the virus level to close to zero.
2
SPEAKER_01
That was essentially the idea.
2
SPEAKER_01
If we can just get the virus to go away, we won t have to ever worry about it again.
2
SPEAKER_01
The main problem with our result as far as that strategy was concerned wasn t the death rate, it was the 40 to 50 times more infections than cases.
2
SPEAKER_01
It was the 2.5% or 3% or 4% prevalence rate that we identified of the antibodies in the population.
2
SPEAKER_01
If that number is right, it s too late.
2
SPEAKER_01
The virus is not going to go to zero.
2
SPEAKER_01
And no matter how much we test and trace and isolate, we re not going to get the viral level down to zero.
2
SPEAKER_01
So we re gonna have to let the virus go through the entire population in some way?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, we can talk about that in a bit.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s the Great Barrington Declaration.
2
SPEAKER_01
You don t have to let the virus go through the population.
2
SPEAKER_01
You can shield preferentially.
2
SPEAKER_01
The policy we chose was to shield preferentially the laptop class, the set of people who could work from home without losing their job.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we did a very good job at protecting them.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me...
2
SPEAKER_00
take a small tangent, we re gonna jump around in time, which I think will be the best way to tell the story.
2
SPEAKER_00
So that was the beginning.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay, actually, can I go back one more thing for that, because that s really important, and I should have started with this.
2
SPEAKER_01
What led me to do those studies was a paper that I d remembered seeing from the H1N1 flu epidemic in 2009.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is where I d been much less active in writing about that.
2
SPEAKER_01
I d written like a paper or two about that in 2009.
2
SPEAKER_01
There was actually this same debate over the mortality rate, except it unfolded over the course of three years, two or three years.
2
SPEAKER_01
The early studies of the mortality rate in H1N1 counted the number of cases in the denominator, kind of the number of deaths in the numerator, cases meaning people identified as having H1N1, showing up the doctor, you know, tested to have it.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the early estimates of H1N1 mortality were like 4%, 3%, really, really high.
2
SPEAKER_01
over the course of a couple of more years, a whole bunch of seroprevalence studies, seroprevalence studies of H1N1 flu came out, and it turned out that there were 100 or more times people infected per case.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so the mortality rate was actually something like 0.02% for H1N1, not the three, like a hundred fold difference.
2
SPEAKER_00
So this made you think, okay, it took us a couple of two or three years to discover the truth behind the actual infections.
2
SPEAKER_00
for H1N1, and then what s the truth here, and can we get there faster?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and it spreads in a similar way as the H1N1 flu did.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it spreads via aerosolization, via, you know, so person-to-person breathing, kind of contact up, and maybe some by filmized, but it seems like that s less likely now.
2
SPEAKER_01
In any case, it seemed really important to me to speed up the process of having those seroprevalence studies.
2
SPEAKER_01
so that we can better understand who was at risk and what the right strategy ought to be.
2
SPEAKER_00
This might be a good place to kind of compare influenza, the flu, and COVID in the context of the discussion we just had, which is how deadly is COVID.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you mentioned COVID is a very particular kind of steepness, where the x-axis is age.
2
SPEAKER_00
So,
2
SPEAKER_00
In that context, could you maybe compare influenza and COVID?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because a lot of people, outside of the folks who suggested the lizards who run the world have completely fabricated and invented COVID, outside of those folks, kind of the natural process by which you dismiss the threat of COVID is say, well, it s just like the flu.
2
SPEAKER_00
The flu is a very serious thing, actually.
2
SPEAKER_00
So in that comparison, where does COVID stand?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, the flu is a very serious thing.
2
SPEAKER_01
It kills 50, 60,000 people a year, something like that, or depending on the particular strain that goes around, that s in the United States.
2
SPEAKER_01
The primary difference to me, there s lots of differences, but one of the most salient differences is the age gradient and mortality risk for the flu.
2
SPEAKER_01
So the flu is more deadly for two children than COVID is.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s no controversy about that.
2
SPEAKER_01
Children, thank God, have much less severe reactions to COVID infection than they do to flu infections.
2
SPEAKER_00
and rate of fatalities and stuff like that.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think you mentioned, I mean it s interesting to maybe also comment on, I think in another conversation you mentioned there s a U shape to the flu curve, so meaning like there s actually quite a large number of kids that die from flu.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean the 1918 flu, the H1N1 flu, the Spanish flu in the US killed millions of younger people.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that is not the case with COVID.
2
SPEAKER_01
More than, I m gonna get the number wrong, but something like 70, 80% of the deaths are people over the age of 60.
2
SPEAKER_00
We ve talking about the fear the whole time, really.
2
SPEAKER_00
But my interaction with folks, now I wanna have a family, I wanna have kids, but I don t have that real firsthand experience, but my interaction with folks is at the core of fear that folks had is for their children, like,
2
SPEAKER_00
that somehow, you know, I don t wanna get infected because of the kids, like, because God forbid something happens to the kids.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I think that, obviously, that makes a lot of sense, this kind of, the kids come first no matter what, that s the number one priority, but for this particular virus, that reasoning was, you know,
2
SPEAKER_00
not grounded in data, it seems like, or that emotion and feeling was not grounded in data.
2
SPEAKER_01
But at the same time, this is way more deadly than the flu, just overall, and especially to older people.
2
SPEAKER_00
So the numbers, when the story s all said and done, COVID would take many more lives.
2
SPEAKER_01
So, I mean, .2 sounds like a small number, but it s not a small number worldwide.
2
SPEAKER_00
What do you think that number will be by the end?
2
SPEAKER_00
That s not like, but would we cross, I think it s in the United States, it s the way the deaths are currently reported, it s like 800,000, something like that.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you think we ll cross a million?
2
SPEAKER_00
Seems likely.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it s something that might continue with different variants?
2
SPEAKER_00
What?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, I think, so we can talk about the end state of COVID.
2
SPEAKER_01
The end state of COVID is it s here forever.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think that there is good evidence of immunity after infection such that you re protected both against reinfection and also against severe disease upon reinfection.
2
SPEAKER_01
So the second time you get it, it s not true for everyone, but for many people, the second time you get it will be milder, much milder than the first time you get it.
2
SPEAKER_00
With the long tail, like that lasts for a long time.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_01
So just there are studies that follow cohorts of people who were infected for a year.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the reinfection rate is something like somewhere between 0.3 and 1%.
2
SPEAKER_01
And like a pretty fantastic study, Italy s found that.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s one in Sweden, I think.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s a few studies that found similar things.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the reinfections tend to produce much milder disease, much less likely to end up in the hospital, much less likely to die.
2
SPEAKER_01
So what the end state of COVID is, it s circulating the population forever and you get it multiple times.
2
SPEAKER_00
And then there s, I think, studies and discussions like the best protection would be to get it and then also to get vaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_00
And then a lot of people push back against that for the obvious reasons from both sides because somehow this discourse has become less scientific and more political.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, I think you wanna, the first time you meet it is gonna be the most deadly for you.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so the first time you meet it, it s just wise to be vaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_01
The vaccine reduces severe disease.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, we ll talk about the vaccine, because I want to make sure I address it carefully and properly and in full context.
2
SPEAKER_00
But yes, sort of to add to the context, a lot of the fascinating discussions we re having is in the early days of COVID and now for people who are unvaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s where the interesting story is, the policy story, the sociological story, and so on.
2
SPEAKER_00
Let me go to something really fascinating, just because of the people involved, the human beings involved, and because of how deeply I care about science, and also kindness, respect, and love, and human things.
2
SPEAKER_00
Francis Collins wrote a letter in October 2020 to Anthony Fauci, and I think somebody else, I have,
2
SPEAKER_00
the letter, oh, it s not a letter, email, I apologize.
2
SPEAKER_00
Hi, Tony and Cliff, cgbdeclaration.org.
2
SPEAKER_00
This proposal, this is the Great Barrington Declaration that you re a co-author on.
2
SPEAKER_00
This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the secretary seemed to be getting a lot of attention, and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Levitt at Stanford.
2
SPEAKER_00
There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises.
2
SPEAKER_00
I don t see anything like that online yet.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is it underway?
2
SPEAKER_00
Francis.
2
SPEAKER_00
Francis Collins, director of the NIH, somebody I talked to on this podcast recently.
2
SPEAKER_00
Okay, a million questions I wanna ask, but first, how did that make you feel when you first saw this email come to you?
2
SPEAKER_00
to light, which, when did it come to light?
2
SPEAKER_00
This week, actually, I think, or last week.
2
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so this is because of freedom of information.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_00
Which, by the way, sort of, maybe, because I do want to add positive stuff on the side of the Francis here.
2
SPEAKER_00
Boy, when I see stuff like that, I wonder if all my emails leaked.
2
SPEAKER_00
how much embarrassing stuff.
2
SPEAKER_00
Like, I think I m a good person, but I haven t read my old emails.
2
SPEAKER_00
Maybe, I m pretty sure sometimes I could be an asshole.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, I mean, look, he s a Christian and I m a Christian.
2
SPEAKER_01
I m supposed to forgive, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think he was looking at this
2
SPEAKER_01
Great Barrington Declaration as a political problem to be solved, as opposed to a serious alternative approach to the epidemic.
2
SPEAKER_00
So maybe we ll talk about it in more detail, but just in case people are not familiar, Great Barrington Declaration was
2
SPEAKER_00
was a document that you co-authored that basically argues against this idea of lockdown as a solution to COVID, and you proposed another solution that we ll talk about.
2
SPEAKER_00
But the point is, it s not...
2
SPEAKER_00
that dramatic of a document.
2
SPEAKER_00
It is just a document that criticizes one policy solution that was proposed.
2
SPEAKER_01
But it was the policy solution that had been put forward by Dr. Collins and by Tony Fauci and a few other scientists.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think a relatively small number of scientists and epidemiologists in charge of the advice given to governments worldwide.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it was a challenge to that policy that said that, look, there is an alternate path, that the path we ve chosen, this path of lockdown with an aim to suppress the virus to zero effectively, even though that was unstated, cannot work and is causing catastrophic harm to large numbers of poor and vulnerable people worldwide.
2
SPEAKER_01
We put this out in October 4th, I think, of 2020.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it went viral.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I ve never actually been involved with anything like this where I just put the document on the web and tens of thousands of doctors signed on, hundreds of thousands of regular people signed on.
2
SPEAKER_01
It really struck a chord of people, because I think even by October of 2020, people had this sense that there was something really wrong.
2
SPEAKER_01
with the COVID policy that we ve been following.
2
SPEAKER_01
And they were looking for reasonable people to give an alternative.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, we re not arguing that COVID isn t a serious thing.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it is a very serious thing.
2
SPEAKER_01
This is why we had a policy that aimed at addressing it.
2
SPEAKER_01
But we were saying that the policy we re following is not the right one.
2
SPEAKER_01
So how does a democratic government deal with that challenge?
2
SPEAKER_01
So to me that, you asked me how I felt, I was actually frankly just, I suspected there d been some email exchanges like that, not necessarily from Francis Collins, around the government around this time.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean I felt the full brunt of a propaganda campaign almost immediately after we published it, where newspapers mischaracterized it in the same way over and over and over again.
2
SPEAKER_01
and sought to characterize me as sort of a marginal fringe figure or whatnot, and Sunetra gooped Martin Kulldorff or the tens of thousands of other people that signed it.
2
SPEAKER_01
I felt the brunt of that all year long.
2
SPEAKER_01
So to see this in black and white, with the handwriting essentially, I mean the metaphorical handwriting of Francis Collins was actually frankly a disappointment, because I ve looked up to him for years.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I ve looked up to him as well.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I look for the best in people and I still look up to him.
2
SPEAKER_00
What troubles me is several things.
2
SPEAKER_00
The reason I said about the asshole emails I send late at night is I can understand this email.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s fear, it s panic, not being sure.
2
SPEAKER_00
The fringe, three fringe epidemiologists.
2
SPEAKER_00
Plus Mike Leavitt who won a Nobel Prize, I mean.
2
SPEAKER_00
But using fringe, maybe in my private thoughts I have said things like that about others.
2
SPEAKER_00
like a little bit too unkind, like you don t really mean it.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now, add to that, he recently, this week or whatever, doubled down on the fringe.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is really troubling to me.
2
SPEAKER_00
I can excuse this email, but the arrogance there, Francis honestly, I mean, broke my heart a little bit there.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is an opportunity to like, especially at this stage, to say, just like I told him, to say I was wrong to use those words in that email.
2
SPEAKER_00
I was wrong to not be open to ideas.
2
SPEAKER_00
I still believe that this is not, like say, like ask,
3
SPEAKER_00
actually argue with the policy of the proposed solution also.
3
SPEAKER_00
the devastating, published, devastating takedown.
3
SPEAKER_00
Devastating takedown.
3
SPEAKER_00
As you say, somebody who s sitting on billions of dollars that they re giving to scientists, some of whom are often not their best human beings because they re fighting with each other over money.
3
SPEAKER_00
Not being cognizant of the fact that you re,
3
SPEAKER_00
challenging the integrity.
3
SPEAKER_00
You re corrupting the integrity of scientists by allocating them money.
3
SPEAKER_00
You re now playing with that by saying devastating takedown.
3
SPEAKER_00
Where do you think the published takedown will come from?
3
SPEAKER_00
It will come from those scientists to whom you re giving money.
3
SPEAKER_00
What kind of example would they give to the academic community that thrives on freedom?
3
SPEAKER_00
I believe Francis Collins is a great man.
3
SPEAKER_00
One of the things I was troubled by is the negative response to him
3
SPEAKER_00
from people that don t understand the positive impact that NIH has had on society, how many people it s helped.
3
SPEAKER_00
But this is exactly the, so he s not just a scientist.
3
SPEAKER_00
He s not just a bureaucrat who distributes money.
3
SPEAKER_00
He s also a scientific leader that in difficult times we live in is supposed to inspire us with trust, with love, with the freedom of thought.
3
SPEAKER_00
He s supposed to, you know those fringe epidemiologists?
3
SPEAKER_00
Those are the heroes of science.
3
SPEAKER_00
When you look at the long arc of history, we love those people.
3
SPEAKER_00
We love ideas, even when they get proven wrong.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s what always attracted me to science.
3
SPEAKER_01
Like somebody, the lone voice saying, oh no, the moon of Jupiter does move.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you know, but the funny thing is, you know, Galileo was saying something truly revolutionary.
3
SPEAKER_01
We were saying that what we proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration was actually just the old pandemic plan.
3
SPEAKER_01
It wasn t anything really fundamentally novel.
3
SPEAKER_01
In fact, there were plans like this that
3
SPEAKER_01
lockdown scientists had written in late February, early March of 2020.
3
SPEAKER_01
So we were not saying anything radical, we were just calling for a debate, effectively, over the existing lockdown policy.
3
SPEAKER_01
And this is a disappointment, a really, truly a big disappointment, because by doing this, you were absolutely right, Lex, he sent a signal to so many other scientists to just stay silent, even if you had reservations.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, devastating takedown that people, you know how many people wrote to me privately, like Stanford, MIT, how amazing the conversation with Francis Collins was?
3
SPEAKER_00
There s a kind of admiration because, okay, how do I put it?
3
SPEAKER_00
A lot of people get into science because they want to help the world.
3
SPEAKER_00
They get excited by the ideas and they really are working hard to help in whatever the discipline is.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then there is sources of funding
3
SPEAKER_00
which help you do help at a larger scale.
3
SPEAKER_00
So you admire the people that are distributing the money because they re often, at least on the surface, are really also good people.
3
SPEAKER_00
Oftentimes they re great scientists.
3
SPEAKER_00
So it s amazing.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s why I m sort of...
3
SPEAKER_00
Like sometimes people from outside think academia is broken some kind of way.
3
SPEAKER_00
No, it s a beautiful thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
It really is a beautiful thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s why it s so deeply heartbreaking where this person is, I don t think this is malevolence.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think he s just incompetence at communication, twice.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think there s also arrogance at the bottom of it, too.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes, but all of us have arrogance at the bottom.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes, but there s a particular kind of arrogance, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
So here, it s of the same kind of arrogance that you see when Tony Fauci gets on TV and says that if you criticize me, you re not simply criticizing a man, you re criticizing science itself.
3
SPEAKER_01
Right, that is at the heart also of this email.
3
SPEAKER_01
The certainty that the policies that they were recommending, Collins and Fauci were recommending to the President of the United States were right.
3
SPEAKER_01
Not just right, but right so far right that any challenge whatsoever to it is dangerous.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I think that is really the heart of that email.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s this idea that
3
SPEAKER_01
My position is unchallengeable.
3
SPEAKER_01
Now, to be as charitable as I can be to this, I believe they thought that.
3
SPEAKER_01
I believe some of them still think that, that there was only one true policy possible in response to COVID.
3
SPEAKER_01
Every other policy was immoral.
3
SPEAKER_01
And if you come from that position, then you write an email like that.
3
SPEAKER_01
You go on TV, you say effectively, la science est moi, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that is what happens when you have this sort of unchallengeable arrogance that the policy you re following is correct.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, when we wrote the Great Bank Declaration, what I was hoping for was a discussion about how to protect the vulnerable.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that was the key idea to me in the whole thing was
3
SPEAKER_01
better protection of the older population who are really at really serious risk if infected with COVID.
3
SPEAKER_01
And we had been doing a very poor job, I thought, to date in many places in protecting the vulnerable.
3
SPEAKER_01
And what I wanted was a discussion by local public health about better methods, better policies to protect the vulnerable.
3
SPEAKER_01
So when we were met with, instead, a series of essentially propagandist lies about it.
3
SPEAKER_01
So for instance, I kept hearing from reporters in those days, why do you want to let the virus rip?
3
SPEAKER_01
Let it rip, let it rip.
3
SPEAKER_01
The words let it rip does not appear in the Great Barrington Declaration.
3
SPEAKER_01
The goal isn t to let the virus strip.
3
SPEAKER_01
The goal is to protect the vulnerable, to let society go as, you know, open schools and do other things that it functions best it can in the midst of a terrible pandemic.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
but not let the virus rip, where the most vulnerable aren t protected.
3
SPEAKER_01
The goal was to protect the vulnerable.
3
SPEAKER_01
So why let it rip?
3
SPEAKER_01
Because it was a propaganda term to hit the fear centers of people s brains.
3
SPEAKER_01
Oh, these people are immoral.
3
SPEAKER_01
They just want to let the virus go through society and hurt everybody.
3
SPEAKER_01
That was the idea.
3
SPEAKER_01
It was a way to preclude a discussion and preclude a debate about the existing policy.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I have this app called Clubhouse.
3
SPEAKER_00
I ve gone back on it recently to practice Russian, unrelated, for a few big Russian conversations coming up.
3
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, it s a great way to talk to regular people in Russian.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I also, I was nervous, I was preparing for a Pfizer CEO conversation, and there was a vaccine room.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so I joined it.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it was a pro-science room.
3
SPEAKER_00
These are like scientists that were calling each other pro-science.
3
SPEAKER_00
The whole thing was like theater to me.
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I haven t thoroughly researched, but looking at the resume, they were like pretty solid researchers and doctors.
3
SPEAKER_00
And they were mocking everybody who was at all, I mean, it doesn t matter what they stood for, but they were just mocking people, and the arrogance was overwhelming.
3
SPEAKER_00
I had to shut off, because I couldn t handle that human beings can be like this to each other.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then I went back just to double check, is this really happening?
3
SPEAKER_00
How many people are here?
3
SPEAKER_00
Is this theater?
3
SPEAKER_00
And then I asked to come on stage on Clubhouse to make a couple comments, and then as I opened my mouth, I said, thank you so much, this is a great room, sort of the usual civil politeness, all that kind of stuff.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I said, I m worried that the kind of arrogance with which things are being discussed here will further divide us,
3
SPEAKER_00
and before I said even the unitus, further dividus, I was thrown off stage.
3
SPEAKER_00
Now, this isn t where I mention platform, but like, I am like Lex Friedman, MIT, also, which is something those people seem to sometimes care about, followers and stuff like that.
3
SPEAKER_00
Like, did you just do that?
3
SPEAKER_00
And then they said, enough of that nonsense.
3
SPEAKER_00
Enough of that nonsense.
3
SPEAKER_00
They said to me,
3
SPEAKER_00
Enough of that nonsense.
3
SPEAKER_00
Somebody who is obviously interviewed, Francis Collins, is the Pfizer CEO.
3
SPEAKER_00
You re bringing on French epidemiologists also, so just.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, exactly.
3
SPEAKER_00
But this broke my heart, the arrogance.
3
SPEAKER_00
And this is, echoes of that arrogance is something you see in this email.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I really would love to, we have a million things to talk about to try to figure out how can we find a path forward.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think a lot of the problems
3
SPEAKER_01
We ve seen in the discussion over COVID, especially in the scientific community, there s two ways to look at science, I think, that have been competing with each other for a while now.
3
SPEAKER_01
One way, and this is the way that I view science and why I ve always found it so attractive, is an invitation to a structured discussion where the discussion is tempered by evidence, by data, by reasoning and logic.
3
SPEAKER_01
Right, so it s a dialectical process where if I believe A and you believe B, well, we talk about it, we come up with an experiment that distinguishes between the two, and while B turns out to be right, I m all frustrated, but I buy you dinner, and I say, no, no, no, C, and then we go on from there, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
That s what science is at its best.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s this process of using data in discussion, it s a human activity.
3
SPEAKER_01
right, to learn, to have the truth unfold itself before us.
3
SPEAKER_01
On the other hand, there s another way that people have used science or thought about science as truth in and of itself.
3
SPEAKER_01
This like, if it s science, therefore it s true, automatically.
3
SPEAKER_01
What does the science say to do?
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, the science never says to do anything.
3
SPEAKER_01
The science says, here s what s true, and then we have to apply our human values to say, okay, well,
3
SPEAKER_01
If we do this, well, then this is likely to happen.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s what the science says.
3
SPEAKER_01
If we do that, then that is likely to happen.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, we d rather have this than that, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
But science doesn t tell us that we d rather have this than that.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s our human values that tell us that we d rather have this than that.
3
SPEAKER_01
Science plays a role, but it s not the only thing.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s not the only role.
3
SPEAKER_01
It helps us understand the constraints we face, but it doesn t tell us what to do in face of those constraints.
3
SPEAKER_00
But underneath it, at the individual level, at the institutional level, it seems like arrogance is really destructive.
3
SPEAKER_00
So the flip side of that, the productive thing is humility.
3
SPEAKER_00
So sort of always not being sure that you re right.
3
SPEAKER_00
This is actually kind of,
3
SPEAKER_00
Stuart Russell talks about this for AI research.
3
SPEAKER_00
How do you make sure that AI, super intelligent AI doesn t destroy us?
3
SPEAKER_00
You built in a sort of module within it that it always doubts its actions.
3
SPEAKER_00
Like it s not sure, like I know it says I m supposed to destroy all humans, but maybe I m wrong, and that maybe I m wrong is essential for progress, for actually doing in the long arc
3
SPEAKER_00
of history, not the perfect thing, but better and better and better and better.
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the question I have here for you is, this email so clearly captures some maybe echo, but maybe a core to the problem.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you put responsibility of this email, of the shortcomings,
3
SPEAKER_00
and failures on individuals or institutions?
3
SPEAKER_00
Is this Francis Collins, Anthony?
3
SPEAKER_01
No, this is an institutional failure, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
So the NIH, so I ve had two decades of NIH funding.
3
SPEAKER_01
I ve sat on NIH review panels.
3
SPEAKER_01
The purpose of the NIH is what you said earlier, Lex.
3
SPEAKER_01
The purpose of the NIH is to support the work of scientists.
3
SPEAKER_01
To some extent, it s also to help scientists, to direct scientists to work on things that are very important for public health, or for the health of the public.
3
SPEAKER_01
And the way you do that is you say, okay, we re gonna put $50 million on the research in Alzheimer s disease this year, or $70 million on HIV, or whatever it is.
3
SPEAKER_01
And that pot of money then, scientists compete with each other for the best ideas to use it to address that problem.
3
SPEAKER_01
So it s essentially an endeavor to support the work of scientists.
3
SPEAKER_01
It is not, in and of itself, a policy organ.
3
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t say what public health policy should be.
3
SPEAKER_01
For that, you have the CDC.
3
SPEAKER_01
And what happened during the pandemic is that people in the NIH were called upon to contribute to public health policymaking.
3
SPEAKER_01
And that created the conflict of interest you see in that email.
3
SPEAKER_01
Right?
3
SPEAKER_01
So now you have the head of the NIH in effect saying to all scientists, you must agree with me in the policy that I ve recommended or else you re fringe.
3
SPEAKER_01
That is a deep conflict of interest.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s deep because first, he s conflicted.
3
SPEAKER_01
He has this dual role as the head of the NIH, supporter of scientific funding, and then also inappropriately called to set or help set pandemic policy.
3
SPEAKER_01
That should never have happened.
3
SPEAKER_01
There should be a bright line between those two roles.
3
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you about just Francis Collins.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t know if you, I had a chance to talk to him on a podcast.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t know if you maybe by chance gotten a chance to hear a few words.
3
SPEAKER_00
I heard some of it, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, I have a kind of a question to that because a lot of people
3
SPEAKER_00
wrote to me quite negative things about Francis Collins.
3
SPEAKER_00
And like I said, I still believe he s a great man, a great scientist.
3
SPEAKER_00
One of the things when I talked to him off mic about the vaccine,
3
SPEAKER_00
The excitement he had about when we were recollecting, when they first gotten an inkling that it s actually going to be possible to get a vaccine, just, he wasn t messaging, just in the private or of our own conversation, he was really excited.
3
SPEAKER_00
And why was he excited?
3
SPEAKER_00
Because he gets to help a lot of people.
3
SPEAKER_00
This is a man that really wants to help people.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there could be some institutional self-delusion, the arrogance, all those kinds of things that lead to this kind of email.
3
SPEAKER_00
But ultimately, the goal is, I don t think people quite realize this, the reason he would call you a fringe epidemiologist, the reason there needs to be a devastating published takedown, he, I believe, really believes that it could be very dangerous.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a lot of burden to carry on his shoulders because, like you said, in his role where he defines some of the public policy, depending on how he thinks about the world, millions of people could die because of one decision he make.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s a lot of burden to walk with.
3
SPEAKER_01
No, I think that s right.
3
SPEAKER_01
I don t think that he has bad intentions.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think that he was basically put or maybe put himself in a position where this kind of conflict of interest was going to create this kind of reaction.
3
SPEAKER_01
The kind of humility that you re calling for is almost impossible when you have that dual role that you shouldn t have as funder of science and also setter of scientific policy.
3
SPEAKER_00
I agree with everything you just said except the last part.
3
SPEAKER_00
The humility is almost impossible.
3
SPEAKER_00
Humility is always difficult.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think there s a huge incentive for humility in that position.
3
SPEAKER_00
Look at history.
3
SPEAKER_00
Great leaders that have humility are popular as hell.
3
SPEAKER_00
So if you like being popular, if you like having impact, legacy, these descendants of apes seem to care about legacy, especially as they get older in these high positions.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think the incentive for humility is pretty high.
3
SPEAKER_01
The thing is there s a lot that he has to be proud of in his career.
3
SPEAKER_01
The Human Genome Project wouldn t have happened without him.
3
SPEAKER_01
And he is a great man and a great scientist.
3
SPEAKER_01
So it is tragic to me that his career has ended in this particular way.
3
SPEAKER_00
Can I ask you a question about my podcast conversation with him?
3
SPEAKER_00
By way of advice or maybe criticism.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of people that wrote to me kind words of support, and a lot of people that wrote to me respectful, constructive criticism.
4
SPEAKER_00
How would you suggest to have conversations with folks like that?
4
SPEAKER_00
And maybe, I mean, because I have other conversations like this, including I was debating whether to talk to
4
SPEAKER_00
Anthony Fauci, he wanted to talk.
4
SPEAKER_00
And so what kind of conversation do you have, and sorry to take this on a tangent, but almost from an interview perspective of how to inspire humility and inspire trust in science, or maybe give hope that we know what the heck we re doing and we re gonna figure this out.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think you re – I ve been now interviewed by many people.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think the style you have really works well, Lex.
4
SPEAKER_01
You have to – because I don t think you re going to be ever an attack dog trying to go after somebody and force them to like –
4
SPEAKER_01
you know, submit that they were wrong or whatever about it.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I also actually find that form of journalism and podcasting really off-putting.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s hard to watch.
4
SPEAKER_00
Also, it s a whole other tangent.
4
SPEAKER_00
Is that actually effective?
4
SPEAKER_00
I don t think so.
4
SPEAKER_00
Do you want to ask Hitler, and I think about this a lot, actually interviewing Hitler.
4
SPEAKER_00
I ve been studying a lot about the rise and fall of the Third Reich.
4
SPEAKER_00
I think about interviewing Stalin.
4
SPEAKER_00
Like, I put myself in that mindset, like, how do you,
4
SPEAKER_00
have conversations with people to understand who they are so that, not so you can sit there and yell at them, but to understand who they are so that you can inspire a very large number of people to be the best version of themselves and to avoid the mistakes of the past.
4
SPEAKER_01
I believe that everyone that s involved in this debate has good intentions.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re coming at it from their points of view.
4
SPEAKER_01
They don t, they have,
4
SPEAKER_01
They have their weaknesses, and if you can paint a picture in your questioning by sympathetic questioning of those strengths and weaknesses and their point of view, you ve done a service.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s really all I personally like to see in those kinds of interviews.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t think a gotcha moment
4
SPEAKER_01
is really the key thing there.
4
SPEAKER_01
The key thing is understanding where they re coming from, understanding their thinking, understanding the constraints they faced and how did they manage them.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s gonna provide a much, I mean, to me, that s what I look for when I listen to podcasts like yours, is an understanding of that person and the moment and how they dealt with it.
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I guess the hope is to discover in a sympathetic way a flaw in a person s thinking together.
4
SPEAKER_00
Like, as opposed to discovering the positive thing together, you discover the thing, well, I didn t really think about that.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean, that s how science is, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
That s why we find it, I think, find it so attractive, is this, I like it when a student shows me I m thinking incorrectly.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m really grateful to that student because now I have an opportunity to change my mind about it and then start thinking even more correctly.
4
SPEAKER_01
And there are moments when, I mean, like this is probably a good time to say like what I think I got wrong during the pandemic, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
So like for instance, you said Francis Collins had a moment when he learned that there was quite possible to get a vaccine going.
4
SPEAKER_01
He must ve learned that quite early.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I didn t learn that early.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I didn t know, in March of 2020, in my experience with vaccine development, I thought it would take a decade or more to get a vaccine.
4
SPEAKER_01
That was wrong, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
And I was so happy when I started to see the preliminary numbers in the Pfizer trial that strongly suggested it was going to work.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, like very few times in my life and so happy to be wrong.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it changes kind of, I think I ve heard you mention that a lockdown is still a bad idea unless the vaccine comes out in like tomorrow.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s still like suffering and economic pain, all kinds of pain can still happen in even just a scale of weeks versus months.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, let s talk about the vaccine.
4
SPEAKER_00
What are your thoughts on the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines at the individual and the societal level?
4
SPEAKER_01
So for the vaccine safety data, it s actually challenging to convey to the public how this is normally done.
4
SPEAKER_01
Like normally you would do this in the context of the trial.
4
SPEAKER_01
You d have a long trial with large numbers, relatively large numbers of people.
4
SPEAKER_01
You d follow them over a long time and the trial will give you some indication
4
SPEAKER_01
of the safety of the vaccine, and it did.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the trial, the way it was constructed, when it came out that it was protective against COVID, it was no longer ethical to have a placebo arm.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so that placebo arm was vaccinated, a large part of it.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so that meant that from the trial, you were not going to be able to get data on the long-term safety profiles of the vaccine.
4
SPEAKER_01
And also the other thing about trials, although there s tens of thousands of people enrolled, that s still not enough to get, when you deploy a vaccine at population scale, you re gonna see things that weren t in the trial, guaranteed.
4
SPEAKER_01
Populations of people that weren t represented well in the trial are gonna be given the vaccine and then they re gonna have things that happen to them that you didn t anticipate.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I wasn t surprised when people were a little bit skeptical when the trial was done about the safety profile, just the way the nature of the thing was gonna make it so that it was gonna be hard to get a complete picture from the trials itself.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the trial showed they were pretty safe and quite effective at preventing both you from getting COVID.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think the main endpoint of the trial itself was a symptomatic COVID.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right, so that was, I mean, it was really, to me, about as amazing achievement as anything, organizing a trial of that scale and running it so quickly.
4
SPEAKER_00
and the final results being so surprisingly high.
4
SPEAKER_01
So good, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the problem then was normally it would take a long time.
4
SPEAKER_01
The FDA would tell Pfizer to go back and try it in this subgroup.
4
SPEAKER_01
They d work more on dosing.
4
SPEAKER_01
They d do all these kinds of things that we really didn t have time for in the middle of the pandemic.
4
SPEAKER_01
So you have a basis for approval that it s less full than normally you would have for a population scale vaccine.
4
SPEAKER_01
But the results were good.
4
SPEAKER_01
The results looked really good.
4
SPEAKER_01
And actually, I should say, for the most part, that s been borne out when we ve given the vaccine at scale in terms of protection against severe disease.
4
SPEAKER_01
So people who have got the vaccine for a very long time after they ve had the full vaccination have had great protection against being hospitalized and dying if they get COVID.
4
SPEAKER_00
Let s separate, because this seems to be,
4
SPEAKER_00
there s critics of both categories, but different.
4
SPEAKER_00
Kids and kids, not older people, like let s say five years old and above or something, or 13 years old and above.
4
SPEAKER_00
So for those, it seems like the reduction of the rate of fatalities and serious illness seems to be something like 10x.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, for older people, it is a godsend, this vaccine.
4
SPEAKER_01
It transforms the problem of focus protection from something that s quite challenging, possible, I believe, but quite challenging, to something that s much, much more manageable.
4
SPEAKER_01
Because the vaccine in and of itself, when deployed in older populations, is a form of focus protection.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes, by the way, we ll talk about the focus protection in one segment, because it s such a brilliant idea for this pandemic of future pandemics.
4
SPEAKER_00
I thought the sociological, psychological discussion about the letter from Francis Collins is, because it was so recent, it has been so troubling to me, so I m glad we talked about that first.
4
SPEAKER_00
But so there seems to be,
4
SPEAKER_00
The vaccines work to reduce deaths, and that has especially the most transformative effects for the older folks.
4
SPEAKER_01
I ve told you one thing that I got wrong in the pandemic.
4
SPEAKER_01
Let me tell you the second thing I got wrong, for sure, in the pandemic.
4
SPEAKER_01
In January of this year, 2021, I thought that the vaccines would stop infection.
4
SPEAKER_01
It would make it so that you were much less likely to be infected at all, because the antibodies that were produced by the vaccines looked like they were neutralizing antibodies that would essentially block you from being infected at all.
4
SPEAKER_01
That turned out to be wrong, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
And it became clear as data came out from Israel, which vaccinated very early, that they were seeing surges of infection, even in a very highly vaccinated population, that the vaccine does not stop infection.
4
SPEAKER_00
So you re a used car salesman and you re selling the vaccine, and the features you thought a vaccine would have, I mean, I have a similar kind of sense when the vaccine came out.
4
SPEAKER_00
Vaccine would reduce if you somehow were able to get it.
4
SPEAKER_00
it would reduce rate of death and all those kinds of things, but it would also reduce the chance of you getting it, and if you do get it, the chance of you transmitting it to somebody else.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it turns out that those latter two things are not as definitive, or in fact are, I mean, I don t know to what degree they re not there at all.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I think it s a little complicated, because I think the first two or three months after you re fully vaccinated, after the second dose, you have,
4
SPEAKER_01
60, 70% efficacy peak against infection, which is pretty good, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
But by six, seven, eight months, that drops to 20%.
4
SPEAKER_01
Some places, some studies, like there s a study out of Sweden that suggested it might even drop to zero.
4
SPEAKER_00
And then you re also infectious for some period of time if you do get it, even though you re vaccinated.
4
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
4
SPEAKER_00
Although there seems to be lucid data that the period of time you re infectious is shorter.
4
SPEAKER_01
Is shorter, but the infectivity per day is about as high.
4
SPEAKER_01
The point is that the vaccine might reduce some risk of infecting others, but it s not a categorical difference.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s not safe to be in the presence of just vaccinated people.
4
SPEAKER_01
You can still get infected.
4
SPEAKER_00
Right, so, I mean, there s a million things I wanna ask here, but is there in some sense, because the vaccine really helps on the worst part of this pandemic, which is killing people, yes, doesn t that mean, where does the vaccine hesitancy come from?
4
SPEAKER_00
in terms of, it seems like obviously a vaccine is a powerful solution to let us open this thing up.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so I wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed with Sunetra Gupta in December of last year, with a very naive title, which says, we can end the lockdowns in a month.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the idea is very simple.
4
SPEAKER_01
Vaccinate all vulnerable people.
4
SPEAKER_01
and then open up.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the idea was that the lockdown harms, this is directly related to the Great Barrington Declaration.
4
SPEAKER_01
The Great Barrington Declaration said the lockdown harms are devastating to the population at large.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s this
4
SPEAKER_01
considerable segment of people that are vulnerable, protect them.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, with the vaccine, we have a perfect tool to protect the vulnerable, which is, I still believe, I mean, it s true, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
You vaccinate the vulnerable, the older population, and as you said, it s a tenfold decrease in the mortality risk from getting infected.
4
SPEAKER_01
which is, I mean, amazing.
4
SPEAKER_01
So that was a strategy we outlined.
4
SPEAKER_01
What happened is that the vaccine debate got transformed.
4
SPEAKER_01
So first there s, so you re asking about vaccine hesitancy.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think there s, first there s like, there s the inherent limitations of how to measure vaccine safety, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
So we talked a little bit about it by the trial, but also after the trial, there s a mechanism, and this is the work I ve been involved with before COVID,
4
SPEAKER_01
on tracking and identifying and checking whether the vaccines actually are safe.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the central challenge is one of causality.
4
SPEAKER_01
So you no longer have the randomized trial, but you want to know, is the vaccine, when it s deployed at scale, causing adverse events?
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, you can t just look at people who are vaccinated and see what adverse events happen, because you don t know what would have happened if the person had not been vaccinated.
4
SPEAKER_01
So you have to have some control group.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, what happened is there s several systems to check this that the CDC uses.
4
SPEAKER_01
One very commonly known one now is called VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
4
SPEAKER_01
There, anyone who has an adverse event, either a regular person or a doctor, can just go report, look, I had the vaccine and two days later I had a headache, or whatever it is.
4
SPEAKER_01
The person died a day after I had the vaccine, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, the vaccine was rolled out to older people first, and older people die sometimes with or without the vaccine.
4
SPEAKER_01
So sometimes you ll see someone s vaccinated and a few days later they die.
4
SPEAKER_01
Did the vaccine cause it or something else cause it?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s really difficult to tell.
4
SPEAKER_01
In order to tell, you need a control group.
4
SPEAKER_01
For that, there are other systems the FDA and CDC have.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s one called VSD, Vaccine Safety Data Link.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s another system called BEST, I forget what the acronym is, essentially to track cohorts of people
4
SPEAKER_01
vaccinated versus unvaccinated with as careful a matching as you can do.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s not randomized, but, and see if you have safety signals that pop up in the vaccinated relative to the control group unvaccinated.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so that s, for instance, how the myocarditis risk was picked up in young, especially young men.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s also how the higher risk of blood clots in middle-aged and older women with the J&J vaccine was picked up.
4
SPEAKER_01
There, what you have are situations where the baseline risk of these outcomes are so low that if you see them in the vaccinated arm at all, then it s not hard to understand that the vaccine did this, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
Young men should not be having myocarditis.
4
SPEAKER_01
Middle-aged women should not be having huge blood clots in the brain, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
So when you see that, you can say it s linked.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now, the rates are low.
4
SPEAKER_01
So young men, maybe one in 5,000, one in 10,000 of the vaccine, vaccine-related myocarditis, pericarditis.
4
SPEAKER_01
Young women, middle-aged women, I don t know, I don t, I m not sure what the right number might be, but like I d say it s like in the, you know, one in hundreds of thousands, something like that.
4
SPEAKER_01
So these are rare outcomes, but they are vaccine-linked outcomes.
4
SPEAKER_01
How do you deal with that as a messaging thing?
4
SPEAKER_01
I think you just tell people.
4
SPEAKER_01
You tell people here are the risks.
4
SPEAKER_01
You transparently tell them.
4
SPEAKER_01
So they re not getting into something that they don t know.
4
SPEAKER_00
And don t treat people like they re children and need to be told lies because they won t understand the full complexity of the truth.
4
SPEAKER_00
People, I think, are pretty good at,
4
SPEAKER_00
Or actually, you know, people with time are good at understanding data, but better than anything, they re better at, they re extremely good at detecting arrogance and bullshit.
4
SPEAKER_00
And you give them either one of those.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I ll give you one that s where I think it s greatly undermined vaccine has, greatly undermined the demand for the vaccine is this weird denial that if you recover from COVID, you have extremely good
4
SPEAKER_01
immunity, both against infection and actually severe disease.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that denial leads to people distrusting the message given by like the CDC director, for instance, in favor of the vaccine, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
Why would you deny a thing that s such an obvious fact?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s like you can look at the data and it just, I mean, it just pops out at you that people that are COVID recovered
4
SPEAKER_01
are not getting affected again at very high rates, much lower rates.
4
SPEAKER_00
After these kinds of conversations, I m sure after this very conversation, I often get a number of messages from Joe, Joe Rogan, and from Sam Harris, who to me are people I admire, I think are really intelligent, thoughtful human beings.
4
SPEAKER_00
They also have a platform.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I believe, at least in my mind, about this COVID set of topics, they represent
5
SPEAKER_00
a group of people.
5
SPEAKER_00
Each group has smart, thoughtful, well-intentioned human beings.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I don t know who is right, but I do know that they re kind of tribal, a little bit, those groups.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so,
5
SPEAKER_00
The question I wanna ask is like, what do you think about these two groups and this kind of tension over the vaccine that sometimes, it just keeps finding different topics on which to focus on, like whether kids should get vaccinated or not, whether there should be vaccine mandates or not, which seem to be often very kind of specific policy kinds of questions that miss the bigger picture.
5
SPEAKER_01
I think it s a symptom of the distrust that people have in public health.
5
SPEAKER_01
I think this kind of schism over the vaccine does not happen in places where the public health authorities have been much more trustworthy, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
So you don t see this vaccine, hasn t seen Sweden, for instance.
5
SPEAKER_01
What s happened in the United States is the vaccine has become, first because of politics, but then also because of the scientific arrogance, this sort of touchstone issue, and people line up on both sides of it.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the different language you re hearing
5
SPEAKER_01
is structured around that.
5
SPEAKER_01
So before the election, for instance, I did a testimony in the House on measurement of vaccine safety.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I was invited by the Republicans.
5
SPEAKER_01
There were, I think, four other experts invited by the Democrats or three other experts invited by Democrats, each of whom had a lot of experience in measuring vaccine safety.
5
SPEAKER_01
I was really surprised to hear them each doubt whether the FDA would do a reasonable job in assessing vaccine safety.
5
SPEAKER_01
including by people who have long records of working with the FDA.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, these are professionals, great scientists, whose main goal in life is to make sure that unsafe vaccines don t get released into the world.
5
SPEAKER_01
And if they are, they get pulled.
5
SPEAKER_01
And they re casting doubt on the vaccine, the ability to track vaccine safety before the election.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then after the election,
5
SPEAKER_01
the rhetoric switched on a dime, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
All of a sudden, it s Republicans that are cast as if they re vaccine hesitant.
5
SPEAKER_01
That kind of political shift, the public notices.
5
SPEAKER_01
If all it takes is an election to change how people talk about the safety of the vaccine, well, we re not talking science anymore, many people think, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
I think that created its hesitancy.
5
SPEAKER_01
The other thing I think, the hesitancy, some politicians viewed it as a political, as sort of like a political opportunity.
5
SPEAKER_01
to sort of demonize people who are hesitant.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that itself fueled hesitancy, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
Like if you re telling me I m a Rube that just doesn t want the vaccine because I want everyone to die, well, I m gonna react really negatively.
5
SPEAKER_01
And if you re talking down to me about
5
SPEAKER_01
my legitimate concerns about whether this vaccine s safe to take.
5
SPEAKER_01
I ve heard from women who are thinking about getting pregnant.
5
SPEAKER_01
Should I take the vaccine?
5
SPEAKER_01
I don t know.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there are all kinds of questions, legitimate questions that I think should have good data to answer that we don t necessarily have good data to answer.
5
SPEAKER_01
So what do you do in the face of that?
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, one reaction is to pretend, like we know for a fact that it s safe, when we don t have the data to know for a fact in that particular group, with that particular set of clinical circumstances, you know.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that, I think, breeds hesitancy.
5
SPEAKER_01
People can detect that bullshit.
5
SPEAKER_01
Whereas if you just tell people, you know, I don t know.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, lead with humility.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, you ll end up with a better result.
5
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask you about, I ve recently had a conversation with a Pfizer CEO,
5
SPEAKER_00
This is part therapy session, part advice, because again, I really want us to get through this together, and it feels like the division is a thing that prevents us from getting through this together.
5
SPEAKER_00
And once again, just like with Francis Collins, a lot of people wrote to me words of support, and a lot of people wrote to me words of criticism.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m trying to understand the nature of the criticism.
5
SPEAKER_00
So some of the criticism had to do with against the vaccine and those kinds of things.
5
SPEAKER_00
That I have a better understanding of.
5
SPEAKER_00
But some kind of deep distrust of Pfizer.
5
SPEAKER_00
So actually looking at Big Pharma broadly, I m trying to understand, am I so naive
5
SPEAKER_00
that I just don t see it, because yes, there s corrupt people, and they re greedy, they re flawed in all walks of life, but companies...
5
SPEAKER_00
do quite an incredible job of taking a good idea at the scale and making some money with that idea.
5
SPEAKER_00
But they are the ones that achieve scale on a good idea.
5
SPEAKER_00
I don t know, it s not obvious to me, I don t see where the manipulation is.
5
SPEAKER_00
So the fear that people have,
5
SPEAKER_00
I talked to Joe about this quite a bit.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think this is a legitimate fear and a fear you should often have, that money has influence, disproportional influence, especially in politics.
5
SPEAKER_00
So the fear is that
5
SPEAKER_00
the policy of the vaccine was connected to the fact that lots of money could be made by manufacturing the vaccine.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I understand that.
5
SPEAKER_00
And it s actually quite a heck of a difficult task to alleviate that concern.
5
SPEAKER_00
Like you really have to be a great man or woman or leader to convince people that you re not full of shit, that you re not just playing a game on them.
5
SPEAKER_00
I don t know, it s a difficult task, but at the same time, I really don t like the natural distrust every billionaire, distrust everybody who s trying to make money, because it feels like, under a capitalistic system at least, the way to do a lot of good, to do good at scale in the world is by being, at least in part, motivated by
5
SPEAKER_01
Prof, I mean, I share your ambivalence, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
So on the one hand, you have a fantastic achievement, the discovery of the vaccine and then the manufacturing at scale so that billions of people can take the vaccine in a relatively short time.
5
SPEAKER_01
That is a remarkable achievement that could not have happened without companies like Pfizer.
5
SPEAKER_01
On the other hand, there is this sort of corrupting influence of that money.
5
SPEAKER_01
Just to give you one example, there s an enormous controversy over whether relatively inexpensive repurposed drugs can be used to treat the disease.
5
SPEAKER_01
No company like Pfizer has any interest whatsoever in evaluating it.
5
SPEAKER_01
Even Merck, I think it was Merck, that had the patent on ivermectin now expired, has no interest at all in checking to see if it works.
5
SPEAKER_01
Not only do they not have interest,
5
SPEAKER_00
they have a way of talking about people who might have a little bit of interest that s, again, full of arrogance.
5
SPEAKER_00
And that is what troubles me.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s back to the play of science.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re not a bit of curiosity.
5
SPEAKER_00
One, the natural curiosity of a human being, they should always be there in an open-mindedness.
5
SPEAKER_00
And second, in the case of ivermectin and other things like that, you have to acknowledge that there s a very large number of people who care about this topic, and this is a way to inspire them to also play in the space of science, to inspire them with science.
5
SPEAKER_00
You can t just dismiss
5
SPEAKER_00
everybody that, you can t just dismiss people, period.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, well, I mean, I think, here, take ivermectin, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
There s actually a study funded by the NIH, by Tony Fauci s NIAID and the NIH, called ACTIV-6, that s a randomized trial of ivermectin.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s due to be completed in March 2023.
5
SPEAKER_01
So normally when you have private actors like these big drug companies that have no interest in conducting some kind of scientific experiment that would have some public benefit, it s the job of the government, in this case the NIH, to fund that kind of work.
5
SPEAKER_01
The NIH has been incredibly slow.
5
SPEAKER_01
in its evaluations of these repurposed drugs.
5
SPEAKER_01
And it s been left to lots of other private activities of uneven quality.
5
SPEAKER_01
And hence, that s why you have these big fights.
5
SPEAKER_01
Because the data are not solid, you re gonna have these big fights.
5
SPEAKER_00
But also, okay, forget the process of science here, the studies, not enough effort being put into the studies, just the way it s being communicated about.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, no, like horse-paced, I mean, come on.
5
SPEAKER_01
The FDA put a tweet out telling people who are like, they re taking ivermectin because they ve heard good things about it and they re sick and they re desperate.
5
SPEAKER_01
And to call it horse-paced was just, that was terrible.
5
SPEAKER_00
That was deeply irresponsible.
5
SPEAKER_00
My hope is grounded in the fact that young people see the bullshit of this.
5
SPEAKER_00
Young PhD students, graduate students, young students in college, they see the less than stellar way that our scientific leaders and our political leaders are behaving, and then the new generation will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
5
SPEAKER_00
That is my hope, because that s the cool thing I see about young people is they,
5
SPEAKER_00
They re good at detecting bullshit and they don t wanna be part of that.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s my hope in the space of science.
5
SPEAKER_00
Let me return to this idea of the Gray-Barrington Declaration.
5
SPEAKER_00
Return to the beginning.
5
SPEAKER_00
So what are the basics?
5
SPEAKER_00
Can you describe what the Gray-Barrington Declaration is?
5
SPEAKER_00
What are some of the ideas in it?
5
SPEAKER_00
You mentioned focus protection.
5
SPEAKER_00
What are your concerns about lockdowns?
5
SPEAKER_00
Just paint the picture of this early proposal.
5
SPEAKER_01
Sure.
5
SPEAKER_01
So the Great Barrington Declaration, first, why is it called Great Barrington Declaration?
5
SPEAKER_00
It s such a great name.
5
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it s such an epic name.
5
SPEAKER_00
But the reason why it s called that is way less than epic.
5
SPEAKER_01
It was because the conference, which is organized by Martin Kulldorff, who was a professor at Harvard University, biostatistician, he actually designed
5
SPEAKER_01
the safety system, the statistical system that the FDA uses for tracking vaccine safety.
5
SPEAKER_01
He and I had met previously just the summer before, that summer, and he invited me to come to this small conference where he was inviting me and Sunetra Gupta, who is a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Harvard, at Oxford University.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I mean, I jumped at the chance because I knew that Martin and Sinatra were both smarter than me and it would be fun to like talk about what the right strategy would be.
5
SPEAKER_01
On the drive in, I didn t know what the name of the town was, and I asked.
5
SPEAKER_01
They said it was Great Barrington.
5
SPEAKER_01
I had it in the back of my head.
5
SPEAKER_01
Martin and I arrived a little early, and we were writing an op-ed about some of the ideas, hopefully we ll get to talk about very soon, about focus protection and the right strategy.
5
SPEAKER_01
And when Sunetra arrived, we realized we d actually come basically to the same place about the right way to deal with the epidemic.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I thought, well, why don t we write something like the Port Huron Statement, is what I had in the back of my head.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I m like, well, what s the name of this town again?
5
SPEAKER_01
It was Great Barrington.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so it s not Barrington, it s Great Barrington.
5
SPEAKER_00
Which is fantastic, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
It s so over-the-top that it s perfect.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s literally like the Big Bang.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s something about these over-the-top fun titles that just really deliver the power.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s my main contribution was the title, the name Great Barrington Decorative.
5
SPEAKER_01
But yeah, so it was kind of a... And the idea is actually
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, the title is great, and I think that it was written in a very stylish way.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s less than a page, you can go look online and read it.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s written not for scientists, but for the general public, so that people can understand the ideas really simply.
5
SPEAKER_01
But it is not actually a radical set of ideas.
5
SPEAKER_01
It actually represents the old pandemic plans that we ve used for a century, dealing with other similar pandemics.
5
SPEAKER_01
And it s twofold.
5
SPEAKER_01
First, let me talk about the science it rests on, and then I ll talk about the plan.
5
SPEAKER_01
The science, actually, some of it we already talked about.
5
SPEAKER_01
There s this massive age gradient in the risk of COVID infection.
5
SPEAKER_01
Older people face much higher risk than younger people.
5
SPEAKER_01
The second bit of science is, that s not controversial, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
Even if you think the IFR is .7 or .2, no matter what, everyone agrees on this age gradient.
5
SPEAKER_01
The second bit of science is also not controversial.
5
SPEAKER_01
The lockdown-focused policies that we followed have absolutely devastating consequences on the health of the population.
5
SPEAKER_01
Let me just give you some examples.
5
SPEAKER_01
And this was known in October of 2020 when we wrote it, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
So the UN was sounding alarms that there would be tens of millions of people who would starve as a consequence of the economic dislocation caused by the lockdowns.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that s come to pass.
5
SPEAKER_01
Hundreds of thousands of children in places like South Asia dead from starvation as a consequence of lockdowns.
5
SPEAKER_01
The priorities like the treatment of patients with tuberculosis in poor countries stopped because of lockdowns.
5
SPEAKER_01
Childhood vaccination of measles, mumps, rubella, DPT, diphtheria, so on, pertussis, tetanus, all those standard vaccination campaigns
5
SPEAKER_01
stopped.
5
SPEAKER_01
Tens of millions of children skipping these doses for diseases that are actually deadly for them.
5
SPEAKER_00
Is there, just on a small tangent, is it well understood to you what are the mechanisms that stop all those things because of lockdowns?
5
SPEAKER_00
Is it some aspect of supply chain?
5
SPEAKER_00
Is it just literally because hospital doors are closed?
5
SPEAKER_00
Is it because there s a disincentive to go outside by people even when they deeply need help?
5
SPEAKER_01
It s all of the above.
5
SPEAKER_01
But a lot of those efforts, especially those vaccination efforts, are funded and run by Western efforts.
5
SPEAKER_01
Like Gavi is a, I think it s a Gates-funded thing, actually, that provides vaccines for millions of kids worldwide.
5
SPEAKER_01
And those efforts were scaled back.
5
SPEAKER_01
Malaria prevention efforts.
5
SPEAKER_01
So in the developing world, it was a devastating effect, these lockdowns.
5
SPEAKER_01
There was also direct effects, like in India, the lockdowns, when they first instituted, there was an order that 10 million migrant workers who live in big cities and they live hand to mouth, they buy coconuts, they sell the coconuts with the money, they buy food for themselves and coconuts for the next day to sell.
5
SPEAKER_01
walk back to their villages or go back to their villages overnight.
5
SPEAKER_01
So 10 million people walking back to their villages or taking a train back, 1,000 died en route.
5
SPEAKER_01
Overcrowded trains, dying essentially on the side of the road.
5
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it was absolutely inhumane policy.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the lockdowns there, it s kind of like what s happened in the West as well, but it was so severe.
5
SPEAKER_01
There was a seroprevalence study done in Mumbai by a friend of mine at the University of Chicago.
5
SPEAKER_01
What he found was that in the slums of Mumbai, there were 70% seroprevalence in July or August of 2020, whereas in the rest of Mumbai it was 20%.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it was incredibly unequal.
5
SPEAKER_01
The lockdowns protected the relatively well off and spread the disease among the poor.
5
SPEAKER_01
So that s in the developing world.
5
SPEAKER_01
In the developed world, the health effects of lockdowns were also quite bad.
5
SPEAKER_01
So we ve talked already about isolation and depression.
5
SPEAKER_01
There was a study done in July of 2020
6
SPEAKER_00
that found that one in four young adults seriously considered suicide.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, suicide rates haven t spiked up so much, but the depths of despair that would lead somebody to seriously consider suicide itself should be a source of great concern in public health.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, this is one of the troubling things about measuring well-being is we re okay at measuring death and suicide.
6
SPEAKER_01
We re not so good at measuring suffering.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s like people talk about maybe even Holodomor under Stalin or the concentration camps with Hitler.
6
SPEAKER_01
We talk about deaths.
6
SPEAKER_01
But we don t talk about the suffering over periods of years by people living in fear, by people starving, psychological trauma that lasts a lifetime, all of those things.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, and just to get back to that point, we close schools, especially in blue states, we close schools.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, richer parents could send their kids to private schools, many of which stayed open, even in the blue states.
6
SPEAKER_00
They could get pods, they could get tutors, but that s not true for poor and middle class parents.
6
SPEAKER_00
And as a result, what we did is we took away life opportunities for kids.
6
SPEAKER_00
We tried to teach five-year-olds to read via Zoom in kindergarten, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
And the consequence actually, you think, okay, we can just make it up, but it s really difficult to make that up.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s a literature in health economics that shows that even relatively small disruptions in schooling can have lifelong consequences, negative consequences for kids.
6
SPEAKER_00
So they end up growing up poorer, they lead shorter lives and less healthy lives.
6
SPEAKER_00
as a consequence, and that s what the literature now shows is likely to happen with the interruptions of schooling that we had in the United States.
6
SPEAKER_00
Many European countries actually managed to avoid this.
6
SPEAKER_00
There were, in the early days of the epidemic, great indications that children, first, were not severely at risk from COVID itself, nor are they super spreaders.
6
SPEAKER_00
Schools were not the source of community spread.
6
SPEAKER_00
Community spread spread the disease to schools, not the other way around.
6
SPEAKER_00
and we can talk about the scientific base of that if you d like, but that was pretty well known even in October.
6
SPEAKER_00
We closed hospitals in order to keep them available to COVID patients, but as a result, women skipped breast cancer screening.
6
SPEAKER_00
As a result, they are showing up with late-stage breast cancer that should have been picked up last year.
6
SPEAKER_00
Men and women skipped colon cancer screening, again, with later-stage disease that should have been picked up last year with earlier stage.
6
SPEAKER_00
For patients with diabetes, it s very important to have regular screening for blood sugar levels and sort of counseling for lifestyle improvement, and we skipped that.
6
SPEAKER_00
People stayed home with heart attacks and died at home with heart attacks.
6
SPEAKER_00
So you had this like sort of wide range of medical and psychological harms that were being utterly ignored as a result of the lockdowns.
6
SPEAKER_01
Plus there s the economic pain.
6
SPEAKER_01
So like you said, whatever is a good term for the non-laptop class, people would lose their jobs.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes, there might be in the Western world support for them financially, but the big loss there that is perhaps correlated with the depression and suicide is loss of meaning, loss of hope for the future, loss of kind of a sense of stability, all the pride you have in being able to
6
SPEAKER_01
make money that allows you to pave your own way in the world, and yes, just having less money than you re used to, so your family, your kids are suffering, all those kinds of things.
6
SPEAKER_00
There s, again, an economics literature on this, on deaths of despair, it was called.
6
SPEAKER_00
2009, there was the Great Recession.
6
SPEAKER_00
It led to an enormous uptick in overdose from drugs, suicidality, depression, as a result of the job losses that happened during the Great Recession.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, that s happening again, like an enormous increase in drug overdoses.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s not an accident.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s a lockdown harm, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
Same thing with the job losses.
6
SPEAKER_00
The job losses, by the way, it s so interesting because the states that stayed open have had much, much lower unemployment than the states that stayed closed.
6
SPEAKER_00
The labor force participation rates declined by 3%.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s women that separated because they stayed home with their kids.
6
SPEAKER_00
We ve reversed a generation of women, improving women s participation in the labor force.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you think it has to do with institutions that we mentioned that there was so much priority given or so much power given to maybe NIH versus other civilian leaders?
6
SPEAKER_01
Or do people just not care about the economic pain?
6
SPEAKER_01
The leaders, I mean, because to me it was obvious
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, probably it s just studying history.
6
SPEAKER_01
Whenever I listen to people on Twitter, on mainstream news, or just anything, I realize that s the very kind of top.
6
SPEAKER_01
The people that have a voice represent a tiny selection of people.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so whenever there s hard times, I always kind of think about the quiet, the voiceless, the quiet suffering of the tens of millions, of the hundreds of millions.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do political leaders not just give a damn?
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think it was actually a very odd ethical thing at the beginning of the pandemic, where if you brought up economic harms at all, you were seen as callous.
6
SPEAKER_00
Right, so I had a reporter call me up almost the very beginning of the epidemic asking me about
6
SPEAKER_00
like a very particular phenomenon.
6
SPEAKER_00
So like he was anticipating a rise in child abuse because children are gonna be staying at home, child abuse is generally picked up at school.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that actually happened.
6
SPEAKER_00
So the report of child abuse dropped, but actual child abuse increased.
6
SPEAKER_00
Because normally you pick up the child abuse at school, and then you have the intervention, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
So yeah, so I was talking about, well, there s gonna be some economic harms, and they re gonna have health consequences, but the economic harms matter.
6
SPEAKER_00
But he counseled me, and I think he had my best interest at heart.
6
SPEAKER_00
If we were to put that in the story, I would essentially be canceled.
6
SPEAKER_00
Because what the narrative that arose in March of 2020 is if you care about money at all, you re evil and crass.
6
SPEAKER_00
You must only care about lives.
6
SPEAKER_00
The problem with that narrative is that that money, which we re talking about, is actually lives of poor people.
6
SPEAKER_00
When you throw 100 million people around the world into poverty, you re going to see enormous harm to their health, enormous increases in their mortality.
6
SPEAKER_00
It is not immoral to think about that and worry about that.
6
SPEAKER_00
in the context of this pandemic response.
6
SPEAKER_00
Our mind focused so much on COVID that it forgot that there are so many other public health priorities as well that need our attention desperately.
6
SPEAKER_01
And this is the thing I sensed about San Francisco when I visited.
6
SPEAKER_01
I was thinking of moving there for a startup.
6
SPEAKER_01
This is the thing I m really afraid of, especially if I have any
6
SPEAKER_01
on the world through a startup is losing touch in this kind of way.
6
SPEAKER_01
That you mentioned the laptop class, living in this world where you re only concerned about this particular class of people.
6
SPEAKER_01
And also, you know, perhaps early on in the pandemic, amongst the laptop class, there was a legitimate concern for health.
6
SPEAKER_01
Like, you re not sure how deadly this virus is.
6
SPEAKER_01
You re not sure who to listen to, so there s a real concern.
6
SPEAKER_01
And then at a certain point when the data starts coming in, you start becoming more and more detached from the data, you don t start caring less and less, and you start just swimming in the space of narratives, like existing in the space of narratives, and you have this narrative,
6
SPEAKER_01
in San Francisco, in the laptop class, that you just are very proud that you know the truth, you re the sole possessors of the truth, you congratulate yourself on it, and you don t care what actually gigantic detrimental effect it has on society, because you re mostly fine.
6
SPEAKER_01
That, I m so terrified of that.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, I think the antidote to that is just to remember.
6
SPEAKER_00
You remember.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
6
SPEAKER_00
I don t think, you know, remember where you came from and remember who you re doing this for.
6
SPEAKER_00
At the back of your head should always be, what s the purpose?
6
SPEAKER_00
Like, why am I here?
6
SPEAKER_00
What s the purpose of this?
6
SPEAKER_00
And if the purpose is simply self-aggrandizement, then you should rethink, because it ll just end up being a hollow life.
6
SPEAKER_01
All of us will be forgotten in the end.
6
SPEAKER_01
Focus protection, the idea, the policy, what is focus protection?
6
SPEAKER_00
Right, so I was saying that there s two scientific bases, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
So one is this steep age gradient, and the second is the existence of lockdowns.
6
SPEAKER_00
Again, I think there s very little disagreement in the scientific community on both of those facts.
6
SPEAKER_00
If you put those facts together,
6
SPEAKER_00
The obvious policy is to protect the people who are at the most severe risk from the disease itself.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that s the idea of focus protection.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s the general principle of it.
6
SPEAKER_00
The actual implementation of it depends on the living circumstances of the people that are at risk, the resources that are available in the community, the technology that s available to do this.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so it s almost always going to be, in fact, it ll always be a local thing.
6
SPEAKER_00
because it ll depend on all of those things which are all local in nature, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
So one very, very obvious thing, in a country like ours where so many older people live in institutionalized settings, in nursing home settings, and that s where older, really vulnerable, chronically ill patients often live,
6
SPEAKER_00
and you know this disease affects that group most commonly, it is absolutely vital to protect that group.
6
SPEAKER_00
We should have known that in February 2020 from just from the Chinese data.
6
SPEAKER_00
And we should have thought about that group as the key constraint in our policymaking.
6
SPEAKER_00
Instead, we thought about, in February and March 2020, as hospital beds as the key constraint, hospital beds and ventilator shortages.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so we ran around trying to, like, address that
6
SPEAKER_00
constraint, you know, like a linear programming problem, you figure out which constraint s binding and you address that one thing and then you go on to the next one, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
If that one constraint, we said, okay, the constraint is hospital beds.
6
SPEAKER_00
That led to the decision in many of the Northeast states to send COVID-infected patients who were on the verge of, or looked like they were about to recover, back to nursing homes.
6
SPEAKER_00
who then spread the disease all through there because they wanted to preserve the hospital beds.
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, for somebody who loves numerical optimization, I love the way you frame this, but those are kind of connected, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
If you actually focus on protecting the vulnerable, you will also...
6
SPEAKER_01
have the effect of not hitting the ceiling of the available hospital beds.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s the irony.
6
SPEAKER_00
If we protected the vulnerable, the most likely to be hospitalized, and so by protecting the vulnerable, we would also have addressed the shortage of hospital beds more effectively.
6
SPEAKER_01
So that little shift in priority would have had a big impact.
6
SPEAKER_01
Okay, but specifically the idea is to, and we could talk about different ideas of how to actually do this, but you know, you basically do a lockdown or something like that on a very small set of people.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, you may have to do that if it s community spread is very high, but generally I think
6
SPEAKER_00
It would depend on, again, the living circumstances.
6
SPEAKER_00
So for instance, if you are in a, if you have a, here s a very simple idea that doesn t require a lockdown forced on them.
6
SPEAKER_00
I don t actually generally am not in favor of that kind of forced lockdown, because you just won t get cooperation.
6
SPEAKER_00
But what you could do is provide resources to that group of people.
6
SPEAKER_00
So like imagine you live next door to somebody, an older couple, and there s high community spread.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, they have to go grocery shopping.
6
SPEAKER_00
Some communities did these senior-only grocery hour.
6
SPEAKER_00
But they have to still have to go out, and they might get exposed when they re shopping amongst other seniors.
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, why not organized home delivery of groceries to them?
6
SPEAKER_00
We did that for the laptop class.
6
SPEAKER_00
Or it can even just as a volunteer effort, you know, the older people living next door, just call them up and say, can I help you, go out and go shopping for you.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so you would have potentially federal support of that kind of thing, so these kinds of efforts.
6
SPEAKER_00
Identify where the vulnerable people live.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s really challenging in multi-generational homes.
6
SPEAKER_00
LA County, for instance, there s a lot of
6
SPEAKER_00
older people living together with younger people in relatively crowded, it s really quite a challenge.
6
SPEAKER_00
But there again, you can use resources.
6
SPEAKER_00
So if grandma is worried that grandson has come home, has potentially been exposed, grandson calls grandma, says, I might have been at a party where COVID was.
6
SPEAKER_00
Grandma calls public health, public health then says, okay, you can have this hotel room for a couple of days.
6
SPEAKER_00
until you check to turn negative.
6
SPEAKER_01
In case it wasn t clear, the idea of focus protection is the people that are vulnerable.
6
SPEAKER_01
protect them and everybody else goes on with their lives, open up the economy, just do as it was before.
6
SPEAKER_00
There was still fear abroad, so there still would be some restrictions people would pose on themselves.
6
SPEAKER_00
They probably would go to parties less.
6
SPEAKER_00
The grandsons probably wouldn t go to so many parties, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
There would be less participation in big gatherings.
6
SPEAKER_00
You may even say like big gatherings in order to restrict community spread again.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m not against any of that, but you shouldn t be closing businesses, you shouldn t be closing churches and synagogues, you shouldn t be forcing people to not go to school, you should not be shuttering businesses, you should just allow society to go on.
6
SPEAKER_00
Some disease will spread, but as we ve seen, the lockdown didn t stop the disease from spreading anyways.
6
SPEAKER_01
Right, so what do you make of the criticism that this idea, like,
6
SPEAKER_01
all good ideas cannot actually be implemented in a heterogeneous society where there s a lot of people intermixing.
6
SPEAKER_01
And once you open it up, people like the younger people will just forget that this is even existing and they ll stop caring about the older people and mess up the whole thing and the government will not want to fund.
6
SPEAKER_01
and you kind of, the great efforts you re talking about, about food delivery, and then the food delivery services, be like, why the heck am I helping out on this anyway?
6
SPEAKER_01
Because like, it s not making me much money, and so therefore, like, all good ideas, it will collapse.
6
SPEAKER_00
That might be true.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think it s always a risk with policy, but I think, like, think back to the moment.
6
SPEAKER_00
We actually felt like we were in this together, to some extent.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
6
SPEAKER_00
Right, I think that that empathy that we had that was used to like,
6
SPEAKER_00
tell people to stay in and like happily, not go in happily, but like stay in, to like wear a mask or to do all these things that we thought would help other people could have been redirected to actually helping the people who most needed to be helped.
6
SPEAKER_01
Especially, I do remember March, so this is even way before Barrington, all that kind of stuff.
6
SPEAKER_01
March, April, May, there was a feeling like if we all just work together, we ll solve this.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that maybe started to, when did that start breaking down?
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, unfortunately, the election is mixed into this, that it became politicized.
6
SPEAKER_01
But I think it lasted quite a long time.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think into the summer, I think there was some of that sense.
6
SPEAKER_00
I don t know, it obviously varied among different people.
6
SPEAKER_00
But I think that it s true it would have been challenging.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s also true that it s heterogeneous, exactly the way you said.
6
SPEAKER_00
But what that means is you need a local response, a response.
6
SPEAKER_00
So like my vision of a public health officer is someone that understands their community, not necessarily the nation at large, but their community.
6
SPEAKER_00
And then
7
SPEAKER_00
then works within their community to figure out how to deploy the resources that are available to do the kind of protection policies we re talking about.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s what should have happened.
7
SPEAKER_00
Instead, they spent a huge amount of efforts closing, making sure businesses stayed closed.
7
SPEAKER_00
Businesses that, I mean, there are, you know, like hardware stores that closed.
7
SPEAKER_00
What good did closing a hardware store do?
7
SPEAKER_00
for the spread of COVID.
7
SPEAKER_00
If it had an effect on spread, COVID spread, I mean, it s gonna be marked.
7
SPEAKER_00
We re checking to make sure that plexiglass was put up everywhere, which now in retrospect turns out to probably made the disease worse.
7
SPEAKER_00
You know, masking enforcement, so shaming around masks.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, a huge amount of effort on things that were only tangentially related to focus protection.
7
SPEAKER_00
What if we turned our energy, that enormous energy put into that,
7
SPEAKER_00
instead into focus protection of the vulnerable.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s essentially the conversation I was calling for.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it wasn t, I mean, I didn t think of it as we had every single idea.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, we gave some concrete proposals.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the criticism we got was that those concrete proposals weren t enough.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the answer to that I have is that s true.
7
SPEAKER_00
They weren t enough.
7
SPEAKER_00
I wasn t thinking of them as enough.
7
SPEAKER_00
I was thinking that I wanted to involve an enormous number of people in local public health to help think about how to do focus protection in their communities.
7
SPEAKER_01
The question that s interesting here is about the future too.
7
SPEAKER_01
So COVID has very specific characteristics, like you mentioned about the curve of the death rate based on the, like it seems like with COVID, it s a little bit easier to actually identify a group of people that you need to protect.
7
SPEAKER_01
So other viruses may not be this way.
7
SPEAKER_01
Might lockdown be a good idea, like hardcore lockdown for a future virus that s 10 times deadlier but spreads at the same rate as COVID?
7
SPEAKER_01
Or maybe another way to ask that is, imagine a virus that s 10 times deadlier, what s the right response?
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think it s always gonna be focus protection, but the group that needs the focus protection may change depending on the biology of the virus, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
So the polio epidemic in the 40s and 50s in the US, the great, the people at most risk were children.
7
SPEAKER_00
We didn t know really at the beginning there was this fecal-oral spread, and so we did all kinds of crazy things, including like spraying DDT in communities, which was somehow supposed to get rid of polio.
7
SPEAKER_00
But the focus was on whenever there was an outbreak, they would close the school down.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that was the right thing to do, because that group that needed protection was children, and the disease was spread, we thought, in schools.
7
SPEAKER_00
I don t think there s a single formula that works, but there s a single principle that works.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s hard to imagine a disease that s uniformly deadly across every group and every single person.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s always gonna be some group
7
SPEAKER_00
that s differentially harmed, there s always gonna be some group that s differentially protected.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that may change over time, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
So like in this disease, in this epidemic, as people got infected and recovered, we now had a class of people that were pretty well protected against the disease.
7
SPEAKER_00
They should be, like, instead of ostracizing them because they don t want a vaccine, we should be allowing them to work.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, we re having staffing shortages in hospitals now because we forgot that principle.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s quite a bit of this technology problem, so being able to... How much of it is a sociological problem?
7
SPEAKER_01
How much of it is a technology problem?
7
SPEAKER_01
Where do you put the blame on why this didn t go so great, and how it can go great in the beginning?
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, think about lockdowns.
7
SPEAKER_00
If we didn t have Zoom, we wouldn t have lockdowns.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s a reason in 2009 we didn t lock down.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, we didn t have the technology to replace work with this remote technology.
7
SPEAKER_00
So we had good lockdown technology in Zoom.
7
SPEAKER_01
We didn t have good focus protection technology.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I mean, folks protection is always gonna be complicated, especially for something like this that spreads so easily, it s gonna be complicated.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I m very, I m the last person to say it would have been perfect.
7
SPEAKER_00
There would have been people that would have gotten sick, but they got sick anyways.
7
SPEAKER_00
The hope was that if we suppress community spread low enough, we can protect the vulnerable.
7
SPEAKER_00
That was the hope by lockdown.
7
SPEAKER_00
The reality was that only a certain class of people were able to benefit from lockdown.
7
SPEAKER_00
The rest of society, we call them essential workers, had to keep working and they got sick.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the disease kept spreading.
7
SPEAKER_00
It didn t actually have a substantial effect on community spread in non-laptop class populations.
7
SPEAKER_01
And also we should probably expand the class of people we call vulnerable to those who would suffer, who have the capacity to suffer.
7
SPEAKER_01
given the policies that you re weighing.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s very disingenuous to call the vulnerable just the people, obviously we had the very specific meaning, but broadly speaking, vulnerable should include anybody who can suffer based on the policies you take in response to a virus.
7
SPEAKER_00
That principle you just said, I completely agree with, is something I think has been lost.
7
SPEAKER_00
and unfortunately lost, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
So the policies themselves, if they have harm, those are real and we shouldn t pretend like they re not and essentially demonize the people that suffer them or pretend, I mean, like a lot of times, like the depression that we ve been talking about, that s thought of as like not so important, but it s important.
7
SPEAKER_00
And especially the harm to the people in poor countries, it s like been out of sight, out of mind in much of the rich parts of the world.
7
SPEAKER_01
Once again, I ve hoped that we, seeing this, learning the lessons of history with the communication tools we have now, we ll learn this.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s like going to another country and bombing targeted terrorist locations, and there s going to be some civilians who die pretending that the child who watches their dad die is not going to grow up, first of all, traumatized, but second of all, potentially bring more hate to the world
7
SPEAKER_01
than the hate that you were allegedly fighting in the first place.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s another sort of considering only one kind of harm and not the full range of harms that are being caused by your policies.
7
SPEAKER_00
You know, to return to focus protection, we still should be following the policy now for COVID and we re not, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
So the vaccines,
7
SPEAKER_00
There s a great shortage in vaccines.
7
SPEAKER_00
You wouldn t know it in the United States and in rich parts of the world, but there s a great shortage of vaccines.
7
SPEAKER_00
We re not gonna be able to vaccinate most of the, like the entire set of elderly at least or larger groups until late 2022.
7
SPEAKER_00
Huge numbers of older people around the world in poor countries that have not COVID recovered yet, so they re still quite vulnerable, have not had the vaccine.
7
SPEAKER_00
And yet we re talking about vaccinating five-year-olds
7
SPEAKER_00
who benefit, if at all, from the vaccines of just a very little bit because they face such a low risk of harm from COVID.
7
SPEAKER_01
Well, something that s a little bit near and dear to our specific, the two of our hearts, so you re at Stanford.
7
SPEAKER_01
So Stanford recently announced that they re going back to virtual, at least for some period of time in response to the, maybe you can clarify, but I think it s in response to the escalated
7
SPEAKER_01
how would they phrase it, it s related to Omicron.
7
SPEAKER_01
And a few other universities are kind of like considering back and forth.
7
SPEAKER_01
In my perspective, as somebody who loves in-person lectures, who sees the value of that to students, to young minds,
7
SPEAKER_01
Also, looking at the data, seems the risk aversion in university policies around this, given how healthy the student population is, seems not well calibrated.
7
SPEAKER_01
Let s put it this way.
7
SPEAKER_01
Also- Pathological.
7
SPEAKER_01
Pathological is one way to put it.
7
SPEAKER_01
Given that, depending on the university, but I think many universities require that the student body is vaccinated.
7
SPEAKER_01
at this point.
7
SPEAKER_01
So I think it s a big mistake by Stanford to do this.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I d like to say that because I just hope MIT doesn t.
7
SPEAKER_01
But what are your thoughts about Stanford?
7
SPEAKER_00
Is there a student?
7
SPEAKER_00
I agree with you.
7
SPEAKER_00
I completely agree with you.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think we have failed in our mission to educate our students.
7
SPEAKER_00
by this decision.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I think, frankly, just more broadly, I think we failed generally over the course of the last year and a half in living up to our educational mission.
7
SPEAKER_00
In-person teaching is vital.
7
SPEAKER_00
Now, I can understand if you have older faculty, the principle of focus protection says provide some alternative teaching arrangements for them.
7
SPEAKER_00
That makes sense to me.
7
SPEAKER_00
From the kids  point of view, they re more harmed by not getting the education we promised them than by COVID.
7
SPEAKER_00
So applying this principle of this focus protection, let young professors teach in person.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is before the vaccine.
7
SPEAKER_00
After the vaccine, let everyone teach in person.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, this is the part, I don t understand the discussion we re even having because, you know,
7
SPEAKER_01
Okay, let s leave focus protection aside here because that s a brilliant policy for perhaps for the future when there s no vaccine.
7
SPEAKER_01
Now with the vaccine, I m misunderstanding something here because we re now in a space that s psychological.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s no longer about biology because with the booster shots, which I believe MIT is now requiring before January,
7
SPEAKER_01
With the booster shots, the data shows no matter how old you are, the risks are very low for ending up in a hospital relative to all the other risks you face when you re older.
7
SPEAKER_01
I don t understand, can you explain the policy around closing a university, but also just a policy about just being so scared still in the university setting?
7
SPEAKER_00
I think the universities, the great universities have done great harm.
7
SPEAKER_00
by modeling this kind of behavior.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
7
SPEAKER_01
To me, sorry to keep interrupting, but to me the university should be the beacon of great behavior, not the beacon of like scared, conservative, let s not mess up.
7
SPEAKER_01
Pathological.
7
SPEAKER_01
Let s not make pathological, let s not make anybody angry.
7
SPEAKER_01
It should be a place to play in the space of ideas.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I think the central problem is actually related to the central problem of COVID policy more generally.
7
SPEAKER_00
The goal seems to be to stop the disease from spreading rather than to reduce the harm from the disease.
7
SPEAKER_00
If the goal is to stop the disease from spreading, the sad fact is we have no technology to accomplish that.
7
SPEAKER_01
At this point.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
7
SPEAKER_00
Because it s already deeply integrated into human civilization.
7
SPEAKER_00
Well, I mean, it s here forever, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
There s a zero survey of white-tailed deer in the US.
7
SPEAKER_00
It turns out 80% of white-tailed deer in the US have COVID antibodies.
7
SPEAKER_00
Dogs get it, cats get it.
7
SPEAKER_00
There s almost certainly human animal transmission of it.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, presumably, I mean, I ve heard bats get it apparently.
7
SPEAKER_00
So you have a situation where you have this disease that s here to stay.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the vaccines don t stop the spread of it.
7
SPEAKER_00
The lockdowns don t stop the spread of it.
7
SPEAKER_00
We have no technology to stop the spread of it.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so we re burning the earth trying to stop, do something that s impossible rather than
7
SPEAKER_00
working on what s possible.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so like letting regular college happen, that s a great good.
7
SPEAKER_00
Universities are a wonderful invention and it s contributed so much to society to decide to shut it down.
7
SPEAKER_00
The universities should be fighting tooth and nail to not be shut down, not the other way around.
7
SPEAKER_01
whatever the mechanisms that results in universities doing that, that s probably, this is me talking, it probably has to do with certain incentives for the administration, probably has to do with lawyers and legal kinds of things to avoid legal trouble, but once again, it s when the administration has too much power and too much definition of what the policy is for the university, that s when you get to trouble.
7
SPEAKER_01
The beauty, the power of the university should be about the faculty and the students.
7
SPEAKER_00
Administration just gets in the way.
7
SPEAKER_00
Get out of the way.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, they can help organize things.
7
SPEAKER_00
They play some important role.
7
SPEAKER_00
They certainly do.
7
SPEAKER_00
But they need to remember what the mission is.
7
SPEAKER_00
The mission is not safety.
7
SPEAKER_00
The mission, actually, universities should be dangerous places for ideas and whatnot.
7
SPEAKER_01
What is the role of fear in a pandemic?
7
SPEAKER_01
We ve been dancing around it.
7
SPEAKER_01
Is it useful?
7
SPEAKER_01
Is it destructive?
7
SPEAKER_01
Or is there sort of a complicated story here?
7
SPEAKER_01
Because sort of taking us back into January, 2020, there was so much uncertainty.
7
SPEAKER_01
This could have been a pandemic that is a black death, the bubonic plague.
7
SPEAKER_01
It could have killed hundreds of millions of people.
7
SPEAKER_01
We don t know that.
7
SPEAKER_01
We re very new to this.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s been a while.
7
SPEAKER_01
We re rusty.
7
SPEAKER_01
So there is some value to fear so that you don t do the stupid thing.
7
SPEAKER_00
You don t just go on living.
7
SPEAKER_00
I guess where I come from, I think it s almost entirely counterproductive.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think fear should never be used as a tactic to manipulate human behavior by public health.
7
SPEAKER_01
So the fear on the individual level
7
SPEAKER_01
that feeling of fear, you should be very hesitant about that feeling because it could be easily manipulated by the powerful.
7
SPEAKER_00
Exactly, so I think that fear is natural and it s not something that you have to stoke to get when the facts on the ground suggest it.
7
SPEAKER_00
In fact, the tendency for humans in the face of threats from infectious disease is to exaggerate the fear in their own minds.
7
SPEAKER_00
of being contaminated by the environment and by others.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s just natural to humans.
7
SPEAKER_00
And the role of public health is not necessarily to eradicate the fear, like obviously technological advances can help eradicate the fear, but it s really to help manage that fear and help people put the sort of incentives that come out of that to useful things as opposed to harmful things.
7
SPEAKER_00
What s happened in this pandemic is that there s been a deliberate policy to stoke the fear, to help make people think that the disease is worse than it actually is.
7
SPEAKER_00
In survey after survey, you see this.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that s been incredibly damaging.
7
SPEAKER_00
So young people have readily given away their willingness to participate in regular life because A, they fear COVID more than they ought,
7
SPEAKER_00
And B, they fear that they re going to harm the vulnerable in their lives.
7
SPEAKER_00
You put those two together and you just get this powerful demand for lockdowns.
7
SPEAKER_00
You see this all over the world.
7
SPEAKER_01
Broadly speaking, you have a powerful demand for rational policies, irrational policies, because I would like to mention the flip side of that.
7
SPEAKER_01
I ve been saddened to see how much money there is to be made by the martyrs, the people, the conspiracy theorists that tell you you should be afraid of the government, you should be afraid of the man.
7
SPEAKER_01
It feels like fear is the problem.
7
SPEAKER_01
I think there s some guy that once said something about we should fear fear itself.
7
SPEAKER_01
He was a president or something?
7
SPEAKER_01
I vaguely remember that.
7
SPEAKER_01
So I m worried about both sides here.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think the general principle is that should not be a tool of public policy.
7
SPEAKER_00
The public policy should attempt, and public health policy in particular, should attempt to address that fear.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s not that you should tell people lies.
8
SPEAKER_01
Of course not.
8
SPEAKER_01
Tell people accurately what the risk is.
8
SPEAKER_01
Give people tools that have evidence that they can address their risk with.
8
SPEAKER_01
And level with people when we don t know.
8
SPEAKER_01
I think that is the right adult way to deal with this pandemic from a public health point of view.
8
SPEAKER_01
And that is not the policy we have followed.
8
SPEAKER_01
Instead, public health has intentionally stoked the fear in order to gain compliance with this edicts.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I think the consequence of that is people distrust public health.
8
SPEAKER_01
What you re talking about, the distrust of government, I think is partly a consequence of that.
8
SPEAKER_01
That movement, which is much smaller once upon a time, is much larger now because of, essentially, people look at what public health has done and say, they ve lied to me a whole bunch of times and a whole bunch of things, is the general sense.
8
SPEAKER_01
and there are consequences to that.
8
SPEAKER_01
We re gonna have to work in public health for a long time to try to regain the trust of the public.
8
SPEAKER_00
Throughout all of this, you ve been inspiring, to me, to a lot of people.
8
SPEAKER_00
You ve been fearless, bold, in these kind of challenging the policies, and not in a martyr kind of way, because you re walking the line gracefully and beautifully, I would say.
8
SPEAKER_00
And looking at that, I think you re an inspiration to a lot of young people, so I have to ask, what advice would you give them if they re thinking of going into science, if they re thinking of having an impact in the world, what advice would you give them about their career and maybe about their life, thinking about somebody in high school, maybe in undergraduates?
8
SPEAKER_01
I d say a few things.
8
SPEAKER_01
One is this is a wonderful profession.
8
SPEAKER_01
You have an opportunity to improve the lives of so many and do it by having fun, the kind of play we re talking about.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s an absolute privilege.
8
SPEAKER_01
to be able to work in this kind of area.
8
SPEAKER_01
And to young people that have some gifts or desire for this area, I say, please, go for it.
8
SPEAKER_01
Do what you can.
8
SPEAKER_00
So this area of science broadly.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I mean, it could be, I don t have any gifts in AI, but it could be, or in health, or in medicine, or whatever.
8
SPEAKER_01
Whatever your gifts lie, develop them, work hard and develop them, because it s worth it.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s worth it, not just,
8
SPEAKER_01
not just because you get some status, but because the journey is fun, and the result is improvements in the lives of so many.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I think that is the encouragement I give.
8
SPEAKER_01
I d also say, if you re looking at this ugliness of this debate that s happened over the pandemic,
8
SPEAKER_01
I d say to young people, we need you to come in and help transform it.
8
SPEAKER_01
Many of the people we ve seen in this debate that have behaved poorly, I ask that you forgive them.
8
SPEAKER_01
I ve done my best to try because many of them are acting out of their own sense that they need to do good.
8
SPEAKER_01
But the mistake they made is in this arrogance and this power.
8
SPEAKER_01
When you come in, remember that example as a negative example.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so when you join the debate, you ll join it in a spirit of humility, in a spirit of trying to learn, while keeping that love that led you to enter the field in the first place.
8
SPEAKER_00
And yeah, choose forgiveness versus derision.
8
SPEAKER_00
The people that you know have messed up, give them a pass.
8
SPEAKER_00
It feels like that s how improvement starts.
8
SPEAKER_01
Funny, I ve been thinking this is like, I told you I m Christian, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
So like God has given me many opportunities to forgive people, learn to practice how to do that.
8
SPEAKER_01
Gave you a gift.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s a very humbling thing, I guess.
8
SPEAKER_00
Is there a memory from when you were young that was very formative to you?
8
SPEAKER_00
So you just gave advice to some young people.
8
SPEAKER_00
Is there something that stands out to you that
8
SPEAKER_00
a decision you made, an event that happened that made you the man you are today.
8
SPEAKER_01
I actually grew up in a relatively poor environment.
8
SPEAKER_01
I was born in India and I moved when I was four.
8
SPEAKER_01
My dad had eight brothers and sisters and my mom had four brothers and sisters.
8
SPEAKER_01
She grew up in the slum in Calcutta.
8
SPEAKER_01
His dad died when he was young and he supported his brothers and sisters with university scholarship money.
8
SPEAKER_01
I came to the U.S.
8
SPEAKER_01
and my dad worked in a McDonald s, even though he was an electrical engineer, couldn t find a job in 1971.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so he worked at McDonald s.
8
SPEAKER_01
We lived in a – like this – basically, the housing
8
SPEAKER_01
like development in Cambridge, this middle building on the 17th floor, this housing development.
8
SPEAKER_01
I think that was transformative for me.
8
SPEAKER_01
I didn t realize so much at the time how that experience of being essentially poor, lower middle class, what effect it had on my outlook.
8
SPEAKER_00
You mentioned to me offline that you listened to a conversation that I had with my dad.
8
SPEAKER_00
What impact did your dad have on your life?
8
SPEAKER_00
What memories do you have about him?
8
SPEAKER_01
He was a rocket scientist, actually.
8
SPEAKER_01
He helped design rocket guidance systems.
8
SPEAKER_01
He died when I was 20, and I still miss him to this day.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I think that experience of seeing him sacrifice himself for his family,
8
SPEAKER_01
A brilliant man, but in many ways frustrated with his opportunities in the world, which partly led him to come to the US in the first place.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s had a transformative effect on me, and I wish I could tell him that looking back.
8
SPEAKER_00
Do you think about your own mortality?
8
SPEAKER_00
Do you think about your death?
8
SPEAKER_00
Your dad is no longer with us.
8
SPEAKER_00
You re the old wise sage that represents.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s funny, I ve only worried about death once in this pandemic.
8
SPEAKER_01
Although I ve had two of my, I have a cousin who s 73 and my uncle who s 74 die in India during the pandemic and I grieve them, both from COVID.
8
SPEAKER_01
Like the fear of COVID really has only hit me only really once during this, and it wasn t from me.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I recognize it s irrational.
8
SPEAKER_01
So on the eve of the Santa Clara County seroprevalence study, it was a really interesting thing, because so many people volunteered to help.
8
SPEAKER_01
And my daughter, who s 20, I guess she was 19 at the time, and my wife also volunteered to help with like various aspects of the study.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so even the study, they were going to go out in public, and I didn t know what the death rate was, because we hadn t done the study.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I suspected it was lower than people were saying, but I didn t know.
8
SPEAKER_01
I knew about the age gradient because I d seen the Chinese data, and my daughter s young, but my wife is my age.
8
SPEAKER_01
and I didn t know the death rate, and I couldn t sleep the night before.
8
SPEAKER_01
What if I m putting my family, my daughter and my wife at risk because of some activity that I m doing?
8
SPEAKER_01
It was kind of, I don t know.
8
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it was a passion.
8
SPEAKER_01
So it s worried about the well-being of others.
8
SPEAKER_01
When you look in the mirror.
8
SPEAKER_01
If I die, I die.
8
SPEAKER_01
Again, I m Christian, so death is not the end for me, I believe.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so I don t particularly worry about my own death, but I do, I mean, I think we can t help but worry about the wellbeing of our loved ones.
8
SPEAKER_00
So from the perspective of God, then let me ask you, what do you think is the meaning of this whole journey we re on?
8
SPEAKER_00
What do you think is the meaning of life?
8
SPEAKER_01
It s very simple, love one another.
8
SPEAKER_01
Treat your neighbor as yourself.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s love, as simple as that.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well I d love to see a little bit more of that in this pandemic.
8
SPEAKER_00
It s an opportunity for the best of our nature to shine.
8
SPEAKER_00
I ve seen some of the worst, but I think some of that is just good therapy.
8
SPEAKER_00
And I m hoping in the end,
8
SPEAKER_00
All we have here is love.
8
SPEAKER_00
At the very least, make your dad proud with some incredible rockets that we re launching out there.
8
SPEAKER_00
I think you d get along well with my dad, Lex.
8
SPEAKER_00
I definitely would.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you so much.
8
SPEAKER_00
This is an incredible honor to talk to you, Jay.
8
SPEAKER_00
You ve been an inspiration to so many people, and keep fighting the good fight.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you so much for spending your valuable time with me today.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for having me here, appreciate it.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jay Bhattacharya.
8
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
8
SPEAKER_00
And now, let me leave you with some words from Alice Walker.
8
SPEAKER_00
The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don t have any.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.