COVID-19: Current state of affairs, Omicron, and a search for the end game | Peter Attia, M.D.

Guest
Marty Makary, Zubin Damania
Read time
~4 min
Uploaded
5 Jan 2022
Duration
2:45:29
Views
60.8K
OPEN ON YOUTUBE ↗

KEYPOINTS

  • 01

    A snapshot recorded on December 27, 2021.

    Attia brings back Johns Hopkins surgeon and public-health researcher Marty Makary and internist Zubin Damania (ZDoggMD) because he'd grown frustrated with shoddy science and messaging. He stresses that the conversation is dated: three months later much more would be known. Treat the specifics as a record of what they argued at the time, not current guidance.

  • 02

    Omicron looked more contagious but less severe.

    Laboratory data showed Omicron replicated about 90% less efficiently in lung tissue than Delta while spreading readily in the airways, and South African epidemiology pointed to milder disease. They speculated COVID could become another endemic coronavirus 'cold', noting the hypothesis that the 1889–1891 'Russian flu' was a coronavirus.

  • 03

    Protection against infection fades; protection against severe disease holds.

    They cited data that primary-series vaccines were about 70% effective against symptomatic infection, with booster protection against symptomatic Omicron waning to roughly 35–45% by about 10 weeks. They argued circulating antibodies wane while B and T cells sustain protection against severe illness, so infection-blocking shouldn't be the policy goal.

  • 04

    Define an end game.

    Attia asks what line in the sand returns the world to something like 2019. Respiratory pathogens infect 10–25% of people every year in perpetuity, so zero COVID isn't realistic. Makary argues the remaining risk sits with the 10–20 million US adults with no immunity; about 7,000 Americans a day were being hospitalized, mostly in that group.

  • 05

    Natural immunity was treated as taboo.

    Makary notes only three human coronaviruses have caused severe epidemics (SARS, MERS, COVID-19); natural immunity to SARS remained solid 17 years later and to MERS at three years. A large Israeli population study suggested natural immunity was strong and durable, yet US policy largely ignored it, unlike historic practice such as assuming immunity to measles for people born before about 1960.

  • 06

    Myocarditis risk is concentrated in young males, especially after dose two.

    For 12–17-year-olds, blended mRNA data showed about 8–10 myocarditis cases per million doses in females but 56–69 per million in males. About 90% of complications clustered after the second dose; most were mild, though a high share were hospitalized. Several countries restricted Moderna for people under 30. For healthy young males, the panel argued, benefits such as averted ICU admissions and deaths per million doses were small relative to that risk.

  • 07

    Healthy children faced very low risk.

    German data covering 5–17-year-olds over about 15 months showed no deaths among healthy children before vaccines; all deaths were in kids with comorbidities. Israeli data showed zero deaths in vaccinated people under 30 after the primary series. The CDC reported 668 pediatric deaths over two years, many with underlying conditions.

  • 08

    The panel criticized booster messaging for teens.

    They argued the CDC strongly recommended boosting all 16–17-year-olds the day after an announcement made without releasing underlying data, while noting that 93% of people in poor countries had no vaccine. Makary also cited data on how much risk healthy young people actually faced.

  • 09

    Science and advocacy got blurred.

    They criticized groupthink, lack of humility from top officials, and 'data fishing' (Makary describes CDC analyses across 50 states over 15 months that cherry-picked findings). Only about 0.05% of the NIH budget went to COVID research months into the pandemic, with grants taking about five months to fund.

  • 10

    Antivirals and testing changed the calculus.

    Attia highlights new oral antivirals such as Paxlovid, whose trials showed no COVID deaths in the treatment arm, as tools 'we couldn't fathom 12 months ago'. They questioned mass testing of healthy people versus targeted testing and protection (N95/KN95 masks, avoiding risky events) for those at high risk.

  • 11

    Lockdowns carried downstream costs.

    They cited a Brown University study showing lower cognitive scores in children born during 2020, alongside delayed care and mental health harms. Makary argued that a victory like 800,000 deaths instead of 2 million came with such an erosion of trust that it may cost lives in the next public-health crisis.

EXAMPLES

  • 01

    Pulling kids out of school

    Attia recounts removing his kids from school about two weeks early in March 2020, showing how his own thinking evolved as data improved.

  • 02

    Masked kids in summer 2021

    A story of three children in a grocery store wearing masks, face shields and PPE, long after their risk was known to be low, illustrates fear outpacing data.

  • 03

    Parachutes at 10,000 vs. 15 feet

    Damania's analogy: mandating parachutes makes sense when jumping from 10,000 feet, not when jumping 15 feet into water; policy should scale to risk.

  • 04

    Vitamin D as surrogate

    They discussed whether people taking 4,000–5,000 IU of vitamin D did better because of the vitamin or because it's a marker of overall health; Attia suspects the latter.

  • 05

    Flu testing, by comparison

    Attia notes he had H1N1 around 2009–10 and, like most people, never thought to measure influenza infection rates in healthy people, a contrast the panel drew with the push for mass COVID testing of people without symptoms or risk factors.

OTHER RELEVANT

  • 01

    Match precautions to personal risk.

    High-risk and unvaccinated adults benefit most from vaccination, antivirals and masks; low-risk people face different trade-offs. The conversation keeps the claim tied to named mechanisms, numbers, and caveats so a listener can act or ask better questions without flattening the nuance.

  • 02

    Weigh sex- and age-specific data.

    For young males, consider myocarditis risk when discussing dose spacing, product choice and boosters with a clinician. The conversation keeps the claim tied to named mechanisms, numbers, and caveats so a listener can act or ask better questions without flattening the nuance.

  • 03

    Ask for the data behind recommendations.

    Policies without released evidence erode trust; look for primary sources. The conversation keeps the claim tied to named mechanisms, numbers, and caveats so a listener can act or ask better questions without flattening the nuance.

  • 04

    Revisit conclusions as evidence changes.

    This conversation reflects late-2021 knowledge and opinion; check current guidance and discuss decisions with your own clinician.