Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil’s Controversial COVID-19 Remarks Spark Outrage and Condemnation from Joe Scarborough
The early days of the COVID-19 pandemic were marked by unprecedented uncertainty, fear, and a global effort to understand and contain the novel coronavirus. Amidst this backdrop, public figures, especially those with medical or media platforms, were under immense scrutiny regarding the information they disseminated. Two prominent television personalities, Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Phil McGraw, found themselves at the center of a firestorm of criticism for remarks made on Fox News that appeared to downplay the severity of the virus and the necessity of public health measures. Their comments drew immediate and forceful condemnation from various quarters, most notably from MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough, who lambasted them for what he perceived as reckless and dangerous statements.
The controversy began with Dr. Mehmet Oz, a cardiothoracic surgeon and host of “The Dr. Oz Show,” during an April 16, 2020, interview on Fox News’ Hannity. In a discussion about the potential reopening of schools, Dr. Oz referenced a study from The Lancet, suggesting that “the opening of schools may only cost us 2 to 3 percent, in terms of total mortality.” He then controversially presented this figure to host Sean Hannity as a potentially acceptable “tradeoff” for resuming children’s education and daily lives. “Schools are a very appetizing opportunity,” Dr. Oz stated. “Any, you know, any life is a life lost, but to get every child back into a school where they’re being educated and fed and making the most of their lives, with the theoretical risk of the backside — that might be a tradeoff some folks would consider.”
This suggestion, implying that a certain percentage of child deaths could be an acceptable price for reopening schools, immediately ignited a wave of outrage across social media and news platforms. Critics argued that such a statistic, applied to millions of children, would translate into hundreds of thousands of lives lost, an outcome far from any acceptable “tradeoff.” The concept of quantifying human life, particularly the lives of children, against economic or social benefits during a public health crisis was widely deemed unconscionable and ethically reprehensible by medical professionals and the public alike.
Joe Scarborough’s Stunned Reaction and Sharp Rebuke
The following morning, on the April 17 episode of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough played the clip of Dr. Oz’s remarks. His reaction was palpable; he appeared visibly stunned and baffled by what he had just heard. Scarborough interpreted Dr. Oz’s statement as a casual acceptance of child fatalities, summarizing it incredulously as, “yeah, kids are gonna die.” His disbelief quickly turned into a sharp rebuke, highlighting the gravity of the statement. “Really, 2 to 3 percent mortality rate? For our children? I mean, my god. As Dr. [Anthony] Fauci said, it is unprecedented,” Scarborough exclaimed, referencing the nation’s leading infectious disease expert who had consistently emphasized the novel and serious nature of the COVID-19 virus.
Scarborough’s outrage underscored a broader concern among public health officials and many in the media: the potential for highly visible personalities, even those with medical credentials, to spread misinformation or downplay the risks of a rapidly spreading, deadly virus. His commentary reflected the sentiment of many who felt that such a calculus of human lives was not only callous but also dangerously misleading, especially when coming from a figure trusted by millions for medical advice.
Dr. Oz’s Apology Amidst Intense Backlash
The backlash against Dr. Oz was swift and severe, forcing him to issue an apology on Twitter shortly after his Hannity interview. He acknowledged the confusion and upset his comments had caused, stating, “I’ve realized that my comments about reopening schools have confused and upset people, which was never my intention. I misspoke.” Dr. Oz attempted to clarify his position by emphasizing his professional commitment to saving lives. “As a heart surgeon, I’ve spent my career fighting to save lives in the operating room by minimizing risks. At the same time, I’m being asked constantly how we’ll be able to get people back to their normal lives. To do that, one of our most important steps is figuring out [how to] get our children safely back to school. We know that for many kids, school is a place of security, nutrition, and learning that is missing right now. These are all issues we are wrestling with. And I’ll continue looking for solutions to beat this virus.”
While Dr. Oz’s apology aimed to quell the criticism, it did little to assuage many of his detractors. Critics argued that “misspoke” did not adequately capture the severity of suggesting a “tradeoff” involving potential child mortality. The incident served as a stark reminder of the immense responsibility that comes with having a large platform during a global health crisis, and the critical importance of precise, accurate communication when discussing public health policy and human lives.
I’ve realized my comments on risks around opening schools have confused and upset people, which was never my intention. I misspoke. pic.twitter.com/Kq1utwiCjR
— Dr. Mehmet Oz (@DrOz) April 16, 2020
Dr. Phil’s Controversial Comparison of COVID-19 Deaths
Adding to the chorus of controversial statements from TV personalities, Joe Scarborough also directed his criticism at Dr. Phil McGraw, host of the popular “Dr. Phil” show. Dr. Phil, who holds a doctorate in psychology but is not a licensed medical doctor for infectious diseases, made an appearance on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle on April 16, 2020. During his segment, he made the startling claim that the ongoing lockdown measures implemented to curb the spread of coronavirus were “deadlier” than the virus itself. “There’s a point at which people start having enough problems in lockdown that it will actually create more destruction and actually more deaths across time than the actual virus will itself,” the Dr. Phil host asserted.
To support his argument, Dr. Phil proceeded to draw questionable comparisons between the number of coronavirus deaths in the United States and fatalities from other causes, including swimming pool drownings, automobile accidents, and smoking cigarettes. He stated, “Two hundred and fifty people a year die from poverty. And the poverty line is getting such that more and more people are going to fall below that, because the economy is crashing around us. And they’re doing that because people are dying from the coronavirus. And I get that, but look — the fact of the matter is, we have people dying — 45,000 people a year die from automobile accidents, 480,000 from cigarettes, 360,000 from swimming pools and we don’t shut the country down for that. But yet, we’re doing it for this?”
What Dr. Phil critically failed to acknowledge in his comparisons was the fundamental difference between these causes of death and a highly contagious, novel virus. Unlike car accidents, drownings, or smoking – which are generally not transmissible from person to person – COVID-19 possesses an exponential rate of spread. Lockdowns and social distancing measures were implemented precisely because the virus could rapidly infect vast populations, overwhelming healthcare systems and leading to an uncontrolled surge in fatalities. Without intervention, the death toll from a contagious virus like COVID-19 could escalate far beyond the numbers seen from non-communicable causes, a crucial distinction that was overlooked in his analysis.
Debunking Dr. Phil’s Inaccurate Statistics and Flawed Logic
Furthermore, several of Dr. Phil’s presented statistics were either inaccurate or significantly misleading. For instance, while he claimed 45,000 people die annually from automobile accidents in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported approximately 40,000 deaths each year, a notable but not insignificant discrepancy. His figure for swimming pool deaths was wildly exaggerated; the CDC indicates an average of just 3,536 unintentional drownings annually in the U.S., which includes all bodies of water, not solely swimming pools. His statistic on cigarette deaths (480,000) was broadly correct, highlighting the immense public health burden of smoking. However, the critical flaw remained: smoking is a personal choice and a long-term health risk, not an acute, contagious infectious disease capable of rapidly incapacitating societies.
In stark contrast to Dr. Phil’s comparisons, as of April 17, 2020, the United States had recorded 678,210 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 34,641 American deaths from the contagious virus in a relatively short span of time. These numbers were skyrocketing daily, showcasing the distinct and urgent threat posed by the pandemic. Scarborough’s response on Morning Joe to Dr. Phil’s remarks was equally unsparing: “I mean, really? The stupidity of that… I’ll let others explain how stupid that is.” His reaction highlighted the frustration felt by many who witnessed influential figures disseminating information that contradicted established scientific consensus and undermined public health efforts.
#CoronaVirusUpdates : ⚠️ 😷
THE STUPIDITY OF T.V. DOCTORS !
DO Not Listen To T.v doctors @DrPhil @DrOz ! #MorningJoe ☕ , #COVID19#coronavirus pic.twitter.com/ZRfsdBGAEc— 🦃 🍁 🍗 (@HollywoodBlvd1) April 17, 2020
The Peril of Misinformation from Influential Figures
Scarborough’s co-host, Willie Geist, articulated the profound danger inherent in the remarks made by both Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz. He pointed out their significant reach and influence: “The problem is, they have huge followings. Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil both have shows with millions of viewers. Fox News, those programs, obviously, are very highly rated. Millions of viewers. So when those prominent doctors go on TV and say these things, a lot of people listen.” Geist highlighted that this widespread viewership directly correlated with public opinion, influencing who took the pandemic seriously and who did not. This phenomenon was reflected in polling data, showing a clear divide in public perception often shaped by media consumption.
Geist further contrasted the approach of “Morning Joe” with that of other programs, explaining, “That’s why we try to have on this show and bring to our audience actual doctors who specialize in this stuff. Public health experts and officials, epidemiologists, who know exactly what they’re talking about, and are not there to play to an audience. They’re not there for TV ratings.” His comments underscored the critical responsibility of media outlets to prioritize credible, fact-based information, especially during a crisis that directly impacts public health and safety. The incident served as a powerful reminder that while entertainment television thrives on personality, public health demands unvarnished scientific accuracy, particularly when guiding public understanding and behavior during a global pandemic. The potential for misinformation, even if unintentional, to undermine public trust and impede effective crisis response, remains a significant challenge that continued throughout the COVID-19 era.