Plenary Session - inactive due to federal service

5.28 - Pandemic Amnesty or Accountability with Paul Fenyves

·38 min·3 clips

Cornell professor Paul Phaneves proposes a middle ground between pandemic amnesty and accountability, challenging both sides.

Vinay Prasad introduces the episode by outlining three topics: pandemic amnesty versus accountability, unknown risks of therapeutics, and vaccine mandates. He notes Phaneves' centrist perspective and evolving views. Phaneves, a practicing internist, explains his background in general internal medicine and digital health. On amnesty, he argues for forgiving the public but holding policymakers accountable for decisions like constraining debate and failing to obtain randomized trial data. He criticizes the lack of RCTs for masking and school policies. Regarding therapeutics, Phaneves applies the principle that all interventions carry unknown risks, advocating caution in low-benefit scenarios like vaccinating children. He compares Paxlovid to Tamiflu, questioning government purchases without robust evidence. On mandates, Phaneves describes his initial support for healthcare worker mandates, based on beliefs about transmission reduction, but his shift after Provincetown and Omicron showed limited effectiveness. He shares an anecdote about a patient with natural immunity denied an exemption, illustrating overzealous enforcement. Phaneves and Prasad agree on the importance of natural immunity recognition and the absurdity of mandating boosters for low-risk groups like college students. The episode concludes with a call for centrist dialogue and policy adaptation as facts change.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Plenary Session - inactive due to federal service