Because I don’t know the answers, these are sincere questions about the coronavirus pandemic I’d like to ask Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx.
Because our establishment media is largely staffed with preening sociopaths only interested in assigning blame and upping the death count by discouraging coronavirus sufferers from consulting with their doctors about a perfectly safe anti-malaria drug, these questions are not being asked.
Because President Trump, for some inexplicable reason, will not allow some outsiders, free thinkers, and outside-the-box types to question the coronavirus task force, I’m going to ask these questions.
So this piece is going to be a little different from what you expect. Those of us overpaid to hot take on these here InterWebDotNets are supposed to do so from a voice of authority. We’re supposed to research and conclude and then bring our conclusions to you, which is what I normally do, even if I have to fake it, but things like death humble me.
I’m happy to swagger around pretending I hold all the answers when the only person I’m putting at risk is me — and the only risk is being exposed as a fool. But the thought of being responsible for even one person getting sick — or, God forbid, dying… No, no, no…
I honestly don’t have the answers here, but…
I do have questions.
- Without a Vaccine, Aren’t We all Eventually Going to Get the Coronavirus?
Unless there’s a vaccine or we choose (as a society or individuals) to remain in lockdown indefinitely, eventually we’re all going to be infected with the coronavirus in one way or another, correct? How sick we get will depend on things like age, etc., I know that, but anyone who is going to get the China virus is eventually going to get the China virus, correct?
My understanding is that the whole idea of “flattening the curve” is not to stop the spread, but to slow the spread. You can’t stop the spread without locking everyone down until a vaccine is found (we’re talking 12 to 18 months), so all you can do is slow the spread, which means slowing the rate of infection to a level where our healthcare system is not overwhelmed.
If the answer to this is yes, or mostly yes (I get that some of us might get lucky if we wash our hands constantly and refrain from touching our face), here’s my follow-up question…
- We Can’t Really Save Any Lives from the Coronavirus, Can We?
Now, to be clear, we can save lives by ensuring our healthcare system is not overwhelmed.
This is a very important point for those who believe we should do no lockdowns.
The whole idea of the quarantine is to slow the rate of infection so our healthcare system is not overwhelmed, because if our healthcare system is overwhelmed — and this is important — Americans will die of the coronavirus who would not otherwise die. That is an intolerable situation and so far, thankfully, triage has not happened anywhere in the U.S. — not even in New York.
We can’t save people who no amount of medical care will save, we can only slow down their rate of deaths so the health system is not overwhelmed, correct?
Which brings me to my next question…
- If We’re Past the Point of Overwhelming the Healthcare System, Why Continue the Lockdowns?
I understand why we do not want to see our health systems overwhelmed, and I understand why the government would issue lockdowns in hot spots like New York, Detroit, etc. We don’t want to lose people who can be saved with proper medical care.
But if a state or county healthcare system is in no danger of being overwhelmed, and we know we can’t stop the infection, why are counties like mine still in lockdown?
A quick lay of the land…
We have 38 eight cases in my county and the four surrounding counties. We also have at least one hospital in each of those five counties.
What’s the point of locking us down?
My understanding is that the worst-case models tell us things will be ten times worse without full mitigation i.e., a lockdown. In other words, the first models told us, 2.2 million dead nationally without mitigation, 240,000 dead with.
That tells me that if there had been no lockdown here, my five-county area would have been hit with 400 cases instead of 38. But for the sake of argument, let’s double it to 20 times, to 800 cases. My local hospitals could have easily handled 800 cases (and not even 50 percent of those cases would have required hospitalization), so…
If we’re basing our decisions on the science (the models) and those 800 people (barring a vaccine or year-long lockdown until there’s a vaccine) are eventually going to get infected anyway, and we are in no danger of anyone dying due to an overwhelmed healthcare system, doesn’t that mean the lockdown is pointlessly harmful?
That we are destroying the local economy for no valid reason?
Shouldn’t every state or county that is in no danger of crashing the health system be allowed to open immediately?
- Looking Back, Were Lockdowns Outside of Hot Zones a Mistake?
With the benefit of hindsight, wasn’t it a mistake to close a state or county that was in no danger of a health system crash?
If 800 people are eventually going to catch the virus in my five counties whether we lock down or not and the health system was never in danger of crashing, didn’t we crash our local economy for no reason and still end up with the same number of sick and dead?
- If the Best-Case Models Were Wrong, What About the Worst-Case Models?
I don’t think there’s any question that New York City and other major hot spots had to go into lockdown. I’m not even questioning the decision to call for a nationwide lockdown four weeks ago. Based on what we knew, there was really no choice.
But going forward…
As of this writing, the best-case model is proving to be way off. You keep saying that’s because the American people are doing so much better of a job at mitigation than expected, but doesn’t that mean the American people could have done a better job of doing things like washing our hands, keeping our distance, and not touching our face without a full lockdown?
Starting tomorrow, could we not do a “much better job than you expect” without shutting down the economy, especially in areas where the healthcare system is in no real danger of being overwhelmed?
Sure, keep New York closed. I get that.
But why rural America?
- Why Can’t We Quarantine the Compromised and Allow the Rest of Us to Go Back to Normal?
We know the risks when we drive a car, when we smoke a cigarette, when we take a drink… The risks not only to ourselves but to others. And now we know the risks of the China virus.
Knowing the risks, why can’t those of us who live in areas where our healthcare system won’t be overwhelmed — which is most of the country — go back to normal?
Without a vaccine, you can’t save those of us who are going to get it from getting it, so as long as there’s no risk of a health system crash, why can’t we go to work, get a haircut, see a movie?
I understand there’s the risk of spikes that could crash local systems, but we have testing in place now to get ahead of that, and you can always hit those areas with a local lockdown, but even so…
Based on your own modeling, in my five-county area, our healthcare system can handle our worst-case scenario times three. Probably times four or five.
So why can’t the elderly, compromised, and those willing to quarantine until there’s a vaccine remain quarantined while the rest of us get on with our lives?
- From a Health Perspective, Are Reusable Straws, Water Bottles, Grocery Bags a Good Idea?
To your credit, you’ve so far refused to get involved in partisan politics; you have stuck to your lane. To your credit, you have said you have one job and that’s to decrease infection while others worry about the economy… Let’s expand that to environmental issues.
Strictly from a health perspective, after this pandemic ends, should Americans return to the “normal” of using reusable straws, grocery bags, water bottles, and coffee cups?
Is it not better for the public health that we use single-use plastics?
How bad are these reusable items for the public health?
- What Did You Know and When Did You Know It?
When Dr. Birx tried to answer this question three weeks ago, because he did not want the public to hear the answer, CNN’s Jim Acosta began heckling her.
I believe she was just about to tell the public how the World Health Organization, as late as late January, was telling everyone the coronavirus could not be spread by human contact.
The media do not want to know what experts like yourself might have been telling the president.
On February 28, Dr. Fauci said it was safe to go to the movie, the gym, and the mall.
On March 9, Dr. Fauci said it was safe for the young and healthy to go on a cruise and that it was still okay to hold campaign rallies in certain areas.
So I would like to know what you knew and when you knew it, a detailed rundown, and please include what you told the president and when, including any advice on not panicking the public.
- What are the Health Risks of an Economic Depression and Lockdown?
We already know for a fact that suicides, drug abuse, and spousal abuse increase during difficult economic times. Will this get worse when you add a lockdown to the equation?
- If You or One of Your Patients Tested Positive, Would You…
Take or prescribe hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or any other medicine currently in trials?
If so, which one and why?
- Is It Medically Appropriate for Governors to Deny Citizens Access to Hydroxychloroquine?
Yes or no?
- What Do You Wish You Had Done Differently?
I’m not asking this question based on what you didn’t know at the time. But based on what you did know at the time, is there anything you now wish you had done differently?
- Is There a Point Where You Would Agree the Models are “Simply Wrong?”
The models are based on “full mitigation” and especially on the issue of hospitalizations, even in the outlier of New York, they are way, way off… Is there some point where they can get so far off you will concede they were simply wrong?
- If We Discover the China Virus Already Hit, What Does That Say About Lockdowns?
There’s a medical report out of Chicago that claims to have found coronavirus antibodies in 30 to 50 percent of those being tested. I’m not asking you to verify this. But this report no longer allows anyone to hide behind the idea the following question is a fringe question unworthy of an answer…
While I realize this is, at least for right now, a hypothetical, if we discover the coronavirus hit much earlier than previously believed, which means it did so without shutting down our healthcare systems or even causing an alarming blip in the death rate, what does that say about the models and the decision to issue lockdowns?
- Why Was New York Such an Outlier?
There’s just no comparing what happened and is happening in New York to the rest of the country. People think they know the answer — New York’s unique population density, mass transit, etc. — are we missing anything?
Again, let me be clear… I don’t know the answers to these questions… I’m not insinuating bad faith on anyone’s part. I respect Fauci and Birx. I see no bad intentions, and any fair reading of my writing here at Breitbart News and my social media accounts will back that up.
I’m just a guy with questions who would like 30 minutes of access to a couple of intelligent people who I truly believe are acting in good faith…