Talk:Scott Atlas/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2020
Why are hyper-artisan sources such as the Washington Post and NPR cited as "neutral sources"? Why not cite his supporters to an equal extent? You should be ashamed of yourself. 72.93.180.98 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What supporters? Please link here references you would like to cite. And what exactly would you like to cite? My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 11:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Interview on COVID-19
If you want to start out with Scott Atlas' own words, a good place to begin is this interview with a Hoover Institution publication. Another good place is the op-ed in The Hill they refer to. Realize that these are primary sources, and we should include secondary sources commenting on him.

https://www.hoover.org/research/doctor-scott-atlas-and-efficacy-lockdowns-social-distancing-and-closings-1 The Doctor Is In: Scott Atlas And The Efficacy Of Lockdowns, Social Distancing, And Closings Peter Robinson Uncommon Knowledge June 23, 2020

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation By Scott W. Atlas 04/22/20 The Hill

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

--Nbauman (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We can not use these two sources. This is exactly the case where one should use only secondary sources. What he said is open to interpretations. We should not interpret his words ourselves, but the secondary RS can do it. Hence I cited WaPo above. Let's take another secondary RS . It tells, for example,


 * That can be cited on the page in such context, with a reference to NYT article (a reputable secondary RS). There are also arguments by the subject about Sweden, which are actually misleading. Sweden was discussed a lot (random ref: ). Here are some actual facts according to these sources.


 * 1) There is no herd immunity in Sweden today because too few people got the virus.
 * 2) The number of deaths in Sweden right now is almost zero. Hence, although the number of deaths per capita was significantly higher than in surrounding similar counties (but lower than in some other countries), they did manage to control the pandemic.
 * 3) How did they do it? I appears they did it by simply practicing the social distancing, even though it was based merely on the recommendations rather than on an official order or lockdown by the government.
 * 4) Unlike Sweden, USA failed miserably so far. Why? Because there is a huge difference in culture, education of the general population, as well as low population density in Sweden. Consider the "Covid parties" (including one near the White House), the "hoax", people refusing to wear masks and do social distancing and beating others for requests to wear masks, and the rampant misinformation from the very top in the USA. There is nothing like Sweden in the USA. One can simply compare the curves for the countries. There was no social distancing in the US, not in the whole country. And now the subject suggests that there should be no social distancing, let's get infected, let's get herd immunity. Here is another quote from NYT:
 * “He has many great ideas,” Mr. Trump told reporters at a White House briefing last month with Dr. Atlas seated feet away. “And he thinks what we’ve done is really good, and now we’ll take it to a new level.”
 * So, “And he thinks what we’ve done is really good [sic!], and now we’ll take it to a new level. [of the pandemic]." Yes, exactly. Personally, I can compare such statements only with fairy tales by Trofim Lysenko. He and his comrades did took Soviet agriculture and biology "to a new level" [of destruction]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Atlas claims that his positions, for example on herd immunity, were misinterpreted and misstated by sources like the Washington Post and New York Times.


 * The subject of this article is not whether the Swedish approach was effective -- it is about Atlas and his opinions, including his opinions on the Swedish approach. As such, we should clearly state his opinions, not somebody else's paraphrase of his opinions. After we state his opinions, we should state contrary opinions, according to WP:WEIGHT, provided they are responding to Atlas specifically. You can't include opinions on the Swedish approach generally, such as this one, because that would be WP:OR. You can't compare Atlas to Lysenko, unless you can find a WP:RS that compares Atlas specifically to Lysenko.


 * According to WP:RS WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." So WP:RS allows us to use quotations from Atlas.


 * Finally, the Washington Post, New York Times, and BBC are WP:RS, but they are not WP:MEDRS. So you can't assume their accuracy in reporting medical issues. Some editors would say they shouldn't be used in medical entries at all. --Nbauman (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's a commentary on Scott Atlas specifically in what should be a WP:MEDRS by the editor of Science:


 * https://blogs.sciencemag.org/editors-blog/2020/08/18/atlas-shrugs/
 * COVID-19
 * Atlas shrugs
 * By H. Holden Thorp
 * Science
 * 18 August, 2020
 * --Nbauman (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Dr. Atlas said in a Fox News radio interview in July. “Low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem. In fact, it’s a positive.” Getting the infection is ... positive. He very clearly stated his position. But all his recent public statements are hardly a science or medicine, they are public health politics statements (that is what he does as a member of the task force right now). So I do not think MEDRS apply. Therefore, the editorial by Holden Thorp in Science (not exactly a MEDRS type source) might be cited on the page. However, his claim about the role of T-cells in COVID-19 immunity is a medical claim which does require MEDRS. This is something poorly explored . My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Where did Atlas use the phrase "herd immunity"? --Nbauman (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "It is Dr. Atlas’s embrace of herd immunity that has alienated his colleagues the most" according to the secondary RS just cited above. Our personal views are not relevant, but let me ask you: why would anyone argue that getting an infection by so called "low-risk individuals" (a lot of them have died already) would be a good thing, as Dr. Atlas argued? My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you have no source to show that Atlas himself used the phrase "herd immunity". Correct? --Nbauman (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources (including the embedded WaPo) that shows quite conclusively that Atlas is arguing for herd immunity without ever using the term. The reason he doesn't use the term, but nevertheless describes and supports the idea, is because he isn't an expert in this field.  Just because someone doesn't use a specific term, doesn't mean it can't be accurately classified and categorized as that defining term, and the sources support that idea.  You are basically saying that Atlas didn't say the sky was blue or even use the word blue, even though he said it was composed of a mixture of magenta and cyan. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that's "conclusive." Those are all secondary sources, and they don't quote anybody by name who is accusing Atlas of arguing for herd immunity. The Washington Post is quoting people who say, second-hand, that Atlas believes in herd immunity. Vanity Fair is repeating the Washington Post's claim, which makes it third-hand. None of them is quoting the primary source, Atlas, or even a named secondary source. That fits the definition of an anonymous rumor.
 * Here's a short piece from Medpage Today:
 * Deborah Birx, MD, and Anthony Fauci, MD, joined new White House coronavirus task force member Scott Atlas, MD, in denying that the administration is secretly trying to attain "herd immunity" in the U.S. (Reuters, Politico)
 * They link to https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-birx/white-houses-birx-denies-herd-immunity-policy-under-consideration-idUSKBN25T2X9 and https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/anthony-fauci-rejects-herd-immunity-407747
 * It seems that Trump was arguing for herd immunity. But Birx, Fauci and Atlas all deny that the White House coronavirus task force supports herd immunity. I don't see any evidence -- besides anonymous rumors and WP:OR -- that Atlas was supporting or arguing for herd immunity. WP:RS does not allow rumors in Wikipedia. Therefore we can't say that Atlas supports herd immunity. --Nbauman (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you need to check what these sources actually say. Politico (your source above) explained it best:
 * According to Reuters, "Dr. Deborah Birx, on Wednesday dismissed the notion that the Trump administration was considering a strategy of allowing Americans to become infected with coronavirus in order to reach “herd immunity... Birx was responding to news reports that new White House pandemic adviser Scott Atlas, a physician who is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, had advocated for the Trump administration to lift all social and business restrictions aimed at stopping infections from spreading." Yes, of course she did. But this is an entirely different thing. The Trump administration may or may not pursue this strategy (we do not know this for fact, this is just a claim by Dr. Brix), but the claim was that Dr. Atlas personally advocated this strategy in his previous presentations. No one disputes that except himself, but such denial is ridiculous because he very clearly articulated his position: "Low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem. In fact, it’s a positive.” and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Washington Post story, the claim that Atlas supports herd immunity is based on unattributed, second-hand sources. The corroborating news stories that you cite are based on the Washington Post stories, that is, third-hand sources.
 * Can you give me an attributed source that Atlas ever supported herd immunity? That is, a person who is willing to be identified who says, in effect, "I heard Atlas support herd immunity"? Or do you acknowledge that you can't meet that test? --Nbauman (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, easily. In addition sources above, that one tells "In April on the conservative Steve Deace Show, Atlas spoke in favor of allowing the virus to pass through the younger segments of the population, while trying to protect older Americans. "We can allow a lot of people to get infected," he said. "Those who are not at risk to die or have a serious hospital-requiring illness, we should be fine with letting them get infected, generating immunity on their own, and the more immunity in the community, the better we can eradicate the threat of the virus." He described the process by name as "herd immunity". He himself described the process by name as "herd immunity". My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a good source -- I think we should use the Steve Deace Show together with the NPR story. --Nbauman (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about NPR as a secondary RS. However, the interview itself is a primary source and better be avoided. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not even sure that this is a primary source, as the term is used in Wikipedia (usually applying to history or science), or second, that the prohibition on primary sources applies if it is. According to WP:OR, Wikipedia does not publish original thought. We're not publishing original thought of our own. We're republishing the thought (and opinion) of Atlas, which was published in a WP:RS for purposes of a source's opinion.
 * Why is it better avoided? --Nbauman (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it better avoided? --Nbauman (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Tonight, Rachel Maddow played clips of Atlas from Fox News calling specifically for both herd immunity and population immunity, in his own words, on Tucker Carlson, followed by clips of Trump currently calling for the same thing. It appears that this discussion is a deliberate obfuscation of these facts. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * He did it again. Now, on Trump's news conference, Atlas said that he "never advocated a herd immunity strategy." (It should also be in the White House transcript.) The only question is, should we on Wikipedia use the actual interviews with the contradictory statements as sources, or are we restricted to "secondary" sources. I think we should. If we use secondary sources, Atlas and his defenders will insist the secondary sources (NPR, etc.) misquoted him. --Nbauman (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020
change: Atlas is a radiologist, not a specialist in public health or infectious diseases. Nevertheless, he was selected by President Donald Trump to serve as an advisor on the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

to: Atlas is a Stanford professor of Radiology and a fellow at the Hoover Institution with extensive publications in Radiology and Health Care. He was selected By President Donald Trump to serve on the White House Corona Virus Task force.

The sentence as originally written is a clear expression of the author's bias against Dr. Atlas. The issue of the controversy over Atlas's credentials is more properly consigned to the body of the article. the attempt to discredit Atlas in the opening paragraph is inappropriate to Wikipedia.

Compare, for example, the Wikipedia profile of Stephen Hahn, the head of the FDA. The opening paragraph mentions that Hahn is a radiation oncologist, but does not add that Hahn is is not a pharmacologist.

Thank you for your attention.

Arnie Calica, MD, PHD (Neurosurgery, Mathematics) Arniecalica (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead is just a summary of page content. I agree that it could be expanded to better summarize content from sections "Career and views" and "Trump administration". The current phrasing in the lead appears because this is a notable controversy, specifically for this person, and it has been described as such in the body of the page (On August 10, 2020, President Donald Trump announced that Atlas would join his administration as an advisor on COVID-19.[16] Atlas is a radiologist,[17] not a specialist in public health or infectious diseases.[12][18] Atlas has advocated for school reopening and resumption of college sports during the pandemic.[19][12][20] The Washington Post reported that Atlas was the leading proponent within the Trump administration for a "herd immunity" approach to the virus.)
 * You are welcome to suggest your version of the summary. However, the suggestion by JDFE24 above is not a good summary and incorrectly implicitly suggests that being a radiologist qualify the subject to be an advisor on the White House Coronavirus Task Force. This claim can not be found anywhere in the body of the page.  My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reworded a bit, this "nevertheless" wording was just scornful. I do think this is something that would be sufficient to mention in the body. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, thank you. My very best wishes (talk)

total political slant and propaganda
this page was created purely with the goal of providing an unbalanced view of the politics of the role Dr. Atlas holds, which is but one of many on the task force. He was not brought on to be an infection disease specialist, others on the task force hold that position. Using only known liberal media sources and opinion-style pieces do not support the reliability requirement of sources The entire section outlining nothing but policital slant should be properly balanced or removed entirely.K67 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you wish to add more well sourced information about his scientific work or his work as a public figure, you are very welcome! But what "political slant"? What you have removed was not political slant. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific objection, then make the objection. But your mass removal was not acceptable. The sources used here are reliable, the wording reflects the sources, and the weight accorded to each point is proper. Neutralitytalk 17:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are my objections to the article. It is not a neutral point of view. An entire section titled "Trump Administration" is not written with a neutral tone. For example, You sentence: "Atlas is a radiologist,[14] not a specialist in public health or infectious diseases." implies that only infectious disease specialists can participate on the president's task force when that is not true. It is clearly an attempt to discredit Dr. Atlas. Wiki rules require all articles to be unbiased and without political slant. Dr. Atlas was appointed as ONE member of a larger task force on the corona virus and he was never positioned as an infectious disease specialist, of which there are already several participating on the task force. You should neutralize the entire section or stop deleting other editor's edits.K67 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "he was never positioned as an infectious disease specialist"? Well, he was appointed on a task force specifically about an infectious disease, he publicly commented a lot about this infectious disease (as noted on the page), and he personally now defines the state policy about this infectious disease (according to RS). Therefore, the RS (not you or me) describe his lack of qualification in this area as a critical factor that may hinder the response by the USA to this infectious disease. That is relevance of this - per cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Help us understand how you feel that members of the Whitehouse Task Force on Corona Virus are required to be infectious disease specialists? Where does it specifically say that is a requirement to participate on the committe? Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Coronavirus_Task_Force#:~:text=On%20February%2026%2C%202020%2C%20U.S.,was%20named%20the%20response%20coordinator to see some of the credentials of others on the task force, most of whom are NOT infectious disease specialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katine67 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No one tells that every member of the task force must be a specialist in infectious diseases. Why exactly he was described negatively in RS? This is not really important, but I think this is probably because he made a lot of public statements which contradict mainstream science. Most other members of the task force did not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This is biased: "Atlas has claimed that children "have virtually zero risk of dying, and a very, very low risk of any serious illness from this disease" and "children almost never transmit the disease" although children can carry, transmit, and be killed by the COVID-19 virus." His first statement is absolutely true and disputed by no reasonable experts, yet the sentence gives the reader the impression that this is incorrect by saying "although children can carry, transmit, and be killed by the COVID-19 virus". First, "although" clearly implies a conflict, but none exist. Second the statement "can be killed by the COVID-19 virus" is weasley; of course out of the millions of kids who have been exposed to the virus there will be some who die for weird reasons. This would be like quoting someone as saying "planes are extremely safe" and then the article following it up with "although people die in plane crashes year after year". 14:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.119.104.219 (talk)
 * I would stick closer to the cited secondary RS (e.g. NYT article ). "Dr. Scott W. Atlas has argued that the science of mask wearing is uncertain, that children cannot pass on the coronavirus and that the role of the government is not to stamp out the virus but to protect its most vulnerable citizens as Covid-19 takes its course." And "he argued that children cannot spread the virus, despite numerous studies that have shown that children can carry the virus, transmit it and die from it.". And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Atlas is a libertarian quack with no expertise in public health and infectious disease, and the article should describe him as such, in neutral terms. I'm sorry that reality has a liberal bias. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is a discredit to Wikipedia
All the article does is slander, has a non neutral point of view, and endlessly editorialises. Quotes purported to be his are actually claims by others, and the points about children being vectors are completely out of place. ALL the data points to children being LESS affected by SARS-CoV-2 than any influenza, and anyone arguing for a significant role of children as vectors is cherry picking science on the fear mongering side. I'd vote this one of Wikipedia's worst articles. It should be cut in half, reduce POV and end editorialising. We understand the strong Democratic bias of Wikipedia, but this is shameful. --Tallard (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I think this page is actually too generous with respect to the subject of the page. Thousands already died or are going to die because of wrong decisions by the subject and the POTUS he advises. That was well described here, and explained by real experts, such as Anthony Fauci. As the source tells,
 * My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed - Regardless of whether one agrees with Atlas's positions, the current presentation fails Wikipedia's guidelines.2600:1700:EA0:A000:BD0F:C459:8A:F607 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Very much disagree. As others have noted, it's too generous to Atlas, if anything. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox picture is messed up
What has happened to the infobox picture? It is totally distorted - squeezing the subjects to be abnormally thin and/or abnormally tall. Can someone fix this? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is severely biased. One example: It says :

"He has expressed skepticism that face masks are effective "scientifically" to halt the spread of the virus, although the broad scientific consensus is that face masks do prevent the spread of the virus.[29]"

The reference [29] is to an article in Washington Post that just says the same thing, without any evidence or reference whatsoever. On the other hand, the WHO2001:6B0:2:2013:CCC8:1673:C340:5635 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC) says (in June 2020):

"At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."

This article is severely biased.
This article is severely biased. One example: It says :

"He has expressed skepticism that face masks are effective "scientifically" to halt the spread of the virus, although the broad scientific consensus is that face masks do prevent the spread of the virus.[29]"

The reference [29] is to an article in Washington Post that just says the same thing, without any evidence or reference whatsoever. On the other hand, the Who says (in June 2020):

"At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19." 2001:6B0:2:2013:CCC8:1673:C340:5635 (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 2001:6B0:2:2013:CCC8:1673:C340:5635, you are ignoring most of the June 2020 WHO report, which stated: "WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission" https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf? Llll5032 (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contributing to the discussion and for linking to the page of the WHO which I had omitted; we have indeed read the same paper. The question is precisely when and where face masks should be recommended. I think most agree that they should e g  be worn by 'health workers', whereas it is debated if they should be worn by the general public. Quoting again from the same WHO-document

"Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the general public.

Many  countries   have   recommended   the   use   of   fabric masks/face  coverings  for  the  general  public. At the  present  time,  the  widespread  use  of  masks  by  healthy  people  in  the  community  setting  is  not  yet  supported  by  high  quality  or  direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below). "

I have no expertise on the efficiency of wearing health masks, and no strong personal opinions on that question. What I do object to, is the description in the Wikipedia article of a 'consensus' on the efficiency of health masks without any further precision, and the use of that 'consensus' to cast doubts on the integrity of Mr Atlas. (I have no opinion on Mr Atlas either.)

There is a somewhat ironic political dimension to this, which is perhaps what makes me react. I am from Sweden, and we have in Sweden exactly the same kind of discussion. Only the political implications are opposite - being pro-mask is right-wing.

79.136.4.69 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no, there is actually a scientific evidence and consensus that using proper masks significantly reduces the probability of infection, even though it does not guarantee anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That was not much of an argument was it?


 * The Centers for Disease Control says mask wearing protects the wearer: "Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer." Llll5032 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, some are for and some are against. Where's the consensus? 2001:6B0:2:2013:C888:D3D:5522:51B4 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The WHO and CDC favor mask-wearing. The WP:RSP say there is a consensus. So there is a consensus, until enough WP:RSP say there is not. Llll5032 (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I find the opening paragraph of this article concerning. Specifically the following portion:

“Atlas is a radiologist, not a specialist in public health or infectious diseases. Nevertheless, he was selected by President Donald Trump to serve as an advisor on the White House Coronavirus Task Force.“

This statement seems to be a persuasive device designed to elicit a response to discredit a physician appointed to a task force. It is highly unusual to highlight a lack of experience, training, or education on an individual’s opening description. It seems to have an objective beyond informing the reader of general information pertaining to the person. A more appropriate statement would read:

“Atlas, a radiologist by training, was selected by President Donald Trump to serve as an advisor on the White House Coronavirus Task Force.“

The argument for or against his appointment to this task force should be left to a subsection of controversies regarding the individual with citations from relevant sources.

I would input this edit myself but the page is currently locked. JDFE24 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Just another example of wiki "bending of reality" in extreme bias rather than their previous neutral policy. This time dancing dangerously on the edge of slander and libel. How sad. https://www.hoover.org/profiles/scott-w-atlas. this must be written prior to saying things they dont like. 2008-2016 Senior Advisor for Health Care to a number of candidates for President of the United States. Advisor for United States Senate and House of Representatives. Health advisor to Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Europe. Correspondent to a long list of news outlets and my favorite: He was named by his peers in The Best Doctors in America every year since its initial publication, as well as in regional listings, such as The Best Doctors in New York and Silicon Valley's Best Doctors. I'm glad he stuck to his guns as a doctor, the oath and his personal principles. Even if it costed him his credibility. When its you or your kid on the line and you need a doctor you're looking for one that advocates for you not whatever interests hes representing. A doctor of moral character rather than special interests. But enjoy your old rags on your face. Totally effective. "masks dont work" "masks now do work but only old rags." Clown world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:C9EC:4A9E:1A86:3FD1 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

White House Coronavirus Task Force?
Is Atlas a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force? None of the articles I've read about his appointment directly say he's a member, though they mention the task force and him attending task force meetings. If he's a member, we should add Category:White House Coronavirus Task Force to the article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the category since this source among others say, or at least indicate, he's a member. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The subject is pushing for herd immunity in the US: “When younger, healthier people get the disease, they don’t have a problem with the disease. I’m not sure why that’s so difficult for everyone to acknowledge,” Atlas said in an interview with Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade in July. “These people getting the infection is not really a problem, and in fact, as we said months ago, when you isolate everyone, including all the healthy people, you’re prolonging the problem because you’re preventing population immunity. Low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem.” . The problems:(a) one can not isolate low- and high-risk groups from each other (relatives), (b) the mortality among people younger than 65 in the US is significant, and (c) there are serious long-term health consequences from the disease. And BTW, Sweden did not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Obvious bias
'Atlas has claimed that children "have virtually zero risk of dying, and a very, very low risk of any serious illness from this disease" and "children almost never transmit the disease"[21][24] although children can carry, transmit, and be killed by the COVID-19 virus'

But his statement is obviously self-evidently true. He said 'virtually zero'. Incidentally there is no such thing as a 'COVID 19 virus', COVID is the disease, the virus is SARS-CoV2. Clearly this was not even written by a scientist- but somebody with a political stance- given the glaring error. --82.26.113.110 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest for a revision to be less "biased"? Fixer23 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How about adding some numbers? 'less than 0.013 per cent of young COVID-19 patients in Canada have died' . As it is the bias is transparent and unsurprising.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:137:E00:B42C:7C44:5533:B0AB (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * He also spewed this fringe drivel: "If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not really very big at all, not like one would have suspected." Oops! My mistake - that was Dr. Anthony Fauci on ABC's This Week program on November 29, 2020, so that quote is actually "expert consensus" instead, since Dr. Fauci is not a "conservative." 173.233.225.129 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The heading "COVID-19 misinformation, controversial statements, and policy influence" contains within bias by use of the word "misinformation". It seems the uneducated masses toting meaningless degrees have lost the distinction between "misinformation" (that is "wrong information, or the fact that people are misinformed") and alternative views. This section begins with a statement "Atlas has spread misinformation about COVID-19" citing only an NBCNews article that makes the same unsubstantiated assertion. The inclusion of this without reservation allows it to pass for fact when a more balanced phrasing would be "Atlas has been accused of spreading misinformation, albeit without evidence of specifically misrepresented facts or figures." The entire section could do with framing his arguments objectively for what they are (as comments above have noted).
 * As we educated masses can tell you, there is no difference between misinformation and such "alternative views", or "alternative facts" as you folks used to call them, so there is no need to use the less clear term. We follow reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading
This is a very misleading description of his views. As of 11/40/20, his views on sending Holden to school has been supported by articles in JAMA and Lucert. This article needs major revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.5.125 (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)