All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show
51:46
Trump’s Big Reopening Plan | Ep. 992
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
As possible treatments begin to materialize for coronavirus, President Trump considers plans for reopening, Nancy Pelosi holds up aid for small businesses while posing in front of a very, very expensive refrigerator, and China admits it fudged the numbers.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN's Stop putting your online data at risk.
Get protected at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
How many times do I have to tell you?
ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
Alrighty.
Well, I promise that was the last Passover day.
That's it.
We're done.
There's no more Passover.
So for all the people who are emailing saying, where are you?
Passover's eight days long, at least outside of Israel.
We're done.
Okay, so there are no more Jewish holidays for another 49 days, right?
Not until Shavuot, so we have at least a month and a half until we get to another set of Jewish holidays.
So, nothing but Shapiro-y goodness from now until then.
So, we bring you your latest coronavirus updates, obviously, because it is the only thing happening in the news.
One of the more odd things about doing the show during this period in time is there's only one thing happening in the news.
Literally no other things happening in the news.
So let's jump into what is happening in the news.
So yesterday was a really bad day in the United States for a number of deaths, apparently over 4,500 deaths recorded in the United States.
Now, how many of those deaths were a result of the changed CDC Standards in terms of what counts as a COVID-19 death, I'm actually not sure.
It doesn't really matter because the bottom line is that those deaths are attributable to COVID-19.
According to the Washington Post, COVID-19 deaths have snowballed from a few isolated cases to thousands across the country each day.
The U.S.
Surgeon General warned last week that it would be like Pearl Harbor.
It turned out to be more than five times as many Americans died from COVID-19 last week than were killed at Pearl Harbor.
If you look at a single week, What you see is that COVID-19 was just on the verge of overtaking heart disease as the number one killer across the country.
Last week, COVID-19 killed more people from April 6th to April 12th than any other cause of death except heart disease does normally in a typical April week.
Normally, cancer kills about 11,000 people per week and heart disease kills about 13,000 people per week.
COVID killed about 12,400 people the week of April 6th to April 12th.
So that is really, really scary.
One of the things that is scary about that, obviously, is that if you prorated that over the course of the year, you are talking hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I mean, easily hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Now, the good news is that that is likely to be the peak.
What we are likely to see is a decline in the number of deaths being reported from around the country.
The number of deaths trail the number of hospitalized cases.
The number of hospitalized cases did peak a few days ago.
Now, with that said, there's a lot of talk about when all of this is going to be reopened, how all of this looks.
I think it's important when we talk about coronavirus deaths, because all you see is the raw numbers.
And very often, people will show you a chart that is one of the more useless charts that I've seen, which is cumulative deaths.
And when you look at cumulative deaths, it looks exponential, right?
The line looks exponential.
It looks like it's rising rapidly.
The problem with using cumulative deaths is it doesn't actually tell you whether the rate of death is increasing, whether the rate of hospitalization is increasing, and that's what we really care about because...
If you are just adding the number of deaths today on top of the number of deaths yesterday, every time you add three or four deaths, the line continues to go up, whereas if you lost five people yesterday and one person today, on the cumulative chart, that looks like a continued increase.
On a non-cumulative chart, like on a day-by-day level, it looks like a pretty significant decrease.
Also important to recognize, as I've been talking about all week, it is deeply irresponsible of the media to tranche people, or fail to tranche people, In the ways that they do.
What I mean by that is that if you are looking at the actual danger of coronavirus, you do have to look at the type of person who is acquiring coronavirus.
To pretend that all people who acquire coronavirus are equally likely to be killed by coronavirus or to end up on a ventilator is simply not true.
And it's really irresponsible, especially because when you're talking about reopening the country, you are going to have to trash people.
You are going to have to determine who is most vulnerable and who is less vulnerable.
And to pretend otherwise is really silly.
And you hear this kind of stuff from members of the media, Fairly regularly.
You hear it from members of government all the time.
They'll say, sure, it's more dangerous for older people, but it could kill anybody.
Well, cancer is mostly dangerous to old people.
Yeah, it could kill anybody, but your chances of acquiring cancer at age 30 are very different from your chances of acquiring cancer at age 75 or age 80.
And to pretend that the risk is equivalent and therefore that the behavior should be equivalent is irresponsible and it's blanket one-size-fits-all policy.
And we'll get to more of that when we talk about the White House policy that's being put forward and what exactly is going to be A sort of well-realized and rational policy and what is not because I think that there continues to be a failure to understand the nature of the virus that is resulting in overbroad policies when it comes to lockdowns and shutdowns.
We're going to get to more of this in just one second.
We'll go through more of the statistics.
First, let's talk about the fact that you're doing more online shopping now than ever because you have to.
I mean, literally all the things are closed.
You can get in your car today and drive around, everything will be closed.
So you go back home, you get online, you're like, oh, why don't I just shop online?
Except that everything's a little too expensive.
Well, why don't you use Honey right now?
It's a free tool that's going to save you all sorts of money.
It saved me probably thousands of dollars at this point.
We are all shopping online a lot.
Honey is the free online shopping tool that saves you money online.
Honey automatically finds the best promo codes and then applies them to your cart, which makes online shopping finally feel as easy as it's supposed to be.
Honey has found it's over 18 million members, over $2 billion in savings.
So you can shop at your favorite sites like Target, Best Buy, Sephora, Macy's, eBay, Etsy, like I use it on a huge number of sites, Amazon.
When you check out, the little box drops down.
All you have to do is click apply coupons.
You wait a few seconds for it to scan every promo code on the internet, like all of them, and then the price just drops.
Again, I've saved probably thousands of dollars on household goods and essentials from Amazon and from Walmart simply by using Honey.
Not using Honey, you're passing up free money.
It's free to use, it installs in seconds, and it's backed by PayPal so you know that it's good.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.
That is joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so as I say, to pretend that all populations are equivalently vulnerable to COVID-19, Is deeply irresponsible.
So I'm going to give you the deaths involving coronavirus by age group in the United States.
By age group in the United States over the course of the last few months.
Basically from February 1st to April 11th.
This is by age in the United States.
Under 1 year of age, there have been 0 deaths from COVID-19.
From 1 to 4 years of age, there have been 2 deaths from COVID-19, this is according to the CDC.
From 5 to 14 years, there has been 1 death from COVID-19.
From 15 to 24 years, there have been 13 deaths from COVID-19.
13 total, across the United States.
Okay, but by the way, here is the comparable statistic as to the number of deaths from all causes during that period.
Over 5,000 people aged 15 to 24 have died in the period February 1st to April 11th in the United States, 13 from COVID-19.
So obviously this is not equivalently hitting people when they say, well, it's hitting young people too.
Yeah, but not, not really.
I mean, statistically speaking, it's really not hitting young people particularly hard.
25 to 34, 113 deaths total from February 1st to April 11th.
That's out of 11,000 total deaths during that period.
11,000 total deaths, 113 from COVID.
35 to 44, there have been nearly 16,000 total deaths, February 1st to April 11th.
289 deaths from COVID.
Okay, so basically, if you're under 45 years of age, the chances that you are going to die from COVID are exceedingly low.
Very, very, very low.
Even compared to the number of deaths total that these groups are experiencing over this period of time.
It starts to elevate as you get older.
45 to 54, 751 people have died from COVID-19 out of 30,500 cases.
So 750 out of 30,000 cases, that's starting to look like a little bit more of a percentage.
out of 30,500 cases, right?
So 750 out of, uh, 750 out of 30,000 cases, that's starting to look like a little bit more of a percentage.
Now you're talking about 2% of all deaths in that age group due to COVID-19.
I think it's about, yeah, that's right.
It's 2%, 2.5%.
It's 2.5% of all deaths in that age group due to COVID-19.
Then it starts to elevate again, 55 to 64.
But as you see, so do the number of total deaths, right?
So 55 to 64, 1,773 deaths, February 1st to April 11th, out of 74,000 deaths.
So 1,800 out of 74,000.
So now you're talking about, again, about 2.4% of all deaths in that age range are happening due to COVID-19.
74,000 deaths.
So 1,800 out of 74,000.
So now you're talking about, again, about 2.4% of all deaths in that age range are happening due to COVID-19.
You get 65 to 74.
2,900 deaths out of 114,000 total deaths.
So now you're talking about, again, 2,900 deaths out of 114,000, 115,000 total deaths.
I'm doing the math in real time here.
You're looking again at about 2.5% of all deaths in that age range are with COVID-19.
So basically, if you are below, if you're between the ages of 45 and 74, you're looking at about a 2.5% chance if you died that you died of COVID-19.
So in other words, as more deaths occur in the group, more people are dying from COVID-19 on an absolute level, but on a percentage basis, it's basically the same from the time you hit 45 to the time you hit 74.
Why?
Because pre-existing conditions start to kick in.
A lot more pre-existing conditions as you get older.
And that continues to maintain and grow as people get older and older, right?
75 to 84 years old, again, these are statistics from the CDC, from February 1st to April 11th, 3,576 deaths out of 144,000 total deaths.
3,576 deaths out of 144,000 total deaths.
So 3,576 deaths out of 144,000 total deaths.
And you're looking at a rate of, again, 2.5%.
So it's basically even, the number of deaths, the percentage of deaths, right?
Out of total number of deaths?
It's just that there are a lot more older people who are dying.
So this thing is more dangerous for older people, clearly, right?
Okay, I'm just reading you the CDC statistics.
And you can look at these statistics across countries.
Okay, it is 100% true that younger people are just not suffering from this thing the way older people are.
And people who do not have pre-existing conditions are not suffering from this thing the way that older people are.
And that's really important.
It's really, really important to mention that because Because if you do not mention that, then it doesn't, you can't formulate a solid policy.
Treating people who are 70 and up, or 60 and up, or pre-existing conditions the same way that you're treating young healthy people when it comes to public policy is really, really foolish.
So Vox has a piece on this, and here's how they conclude, and I think this is sort of irresponsible.
They say, there's no need to belabor the point.
One thing most people know about COVID-19 is it hurts older people the most.
The data bear this out.
People in this age group are the most likely to be hospitalized and to ultimately die during the pandemic.
For the rest of us, the risk is less severe, but far from zero.
And every person should be mindful of how their current health might make them more susceptible.
When they say less severe but far from zero, that makes it sound as though it's sort of a mild difference in degree.
It is a major difference in degree, whether you are under the age of 30 or whether you are above the age of 70.
These are serious, serious concerns.
And this is not suggesting that life itself is more valuable at a particular age.
It's saying if you're going to tell somebody to go back to work and all you know about them is they're a 30-year-old without pre-existing conditions or a 70-year-old with pre-existing conditions, it makes it a pretty easy calculation.
Okay, beyond that, when we're talking about how we get people back to work, we still have not found out.
I mean, it's unbelievable to me that we've not done this.
We still have not done random antibody testing in the United States to find out how many people have actually had this disease.
That makes a huge difference, because if it turns out That the rates are one-tenth of what we have been told, right?
If the rates actually are not 5 or 6 percent, they are 0.6 or 0.5 percent, that changes the math radically, especially because for younger and not as vulnerable people, the rates are going to look more like the seasonal flu, like 0.1 percent for people who are young and healthy.
Now again, that doesn't mean that this is the flu, because the 0.1 percent death rate for the flu includes people who are older and vulnerable, and people who've had vaccine, and people who are out there in public doing all these sorts of things.
With that said, To pretend that all age groups and all health groups are equally vulnerable to this thing, as the government keeps saying, because the government won't just tell you the truth.
And media members won't either.
Here is the truth.
If you are young and you are healthy, your chances of dying from this thing are near zero.
Okay, if you are young and healthy, your chances of dying from this thing are very, very close to zero.
Because first, even if you have to acquire it, which many people will not acquire it, even if you do acquire it, according to the New York City health data, if you are young and you don't have pre-existing conditions, The number of people who have died in New York City, which is the epicenter of this thing, who are young and healthy, is minute.
I mean, I looked at this data just before the holiday, and the New York City health data on COVID-19 is pretty clear about this.
If you look at the rates of death by age, If you look at the COVID-19, probable COVID-19 deaths, so now I'm looking at the PDF that is last updated as of April 15th.
The total number of people under the age of 45 in New York City, right, which has experienced now, what, 7, 8,000 deaths total, right?
City of New York, number of people, no underlying conditions, under age of 45 who have died, 29. 29.
Out of that grand total of number of people who have died.
Grand total of people under 65 who have died with no underlying conditions would be 29 plus 67.
So, 96.
That is not a huge number.
The reason that I'm saying this is because when you make plans for who goes back to work, you need to know these numbers.
Beyond that, beyond that, everybody is suggesting that they know the COVID-19 fatality rate.
Two things can be true.
One, COVID-19 spreads extremely easily.
By all available data, it spreads extremely easily.
Also, the death rates are not nearly what the WHO pegs them at, like 3.4%.
I have evidence of this that I will bring you again in one second.
It's starting to be more consistent across sort of various different studies.
I'll bring you a study from the Netherlands that really suggests that this thing does not have the sort of deadliness that people are suggesting.
It has absolute deadliness because if a ton of people acquire a virus and it has a low percentage of killing people, still a lot of people die from the virus.
But the absolute death rate of this thing is not as high as the WHO originally made it out to be, or any of the death rates that you're actually seeing in the media.
I'll give you the evidence of this in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that you are using earbuds on a regular basis now, right?
You're at home, you gotta have noise canceling, you're on a conference call, you're listening to podcasts, you're watching Netflix on your phone, or whatever it is.
You need a good pair of earbuds that's not gonna cost you a fortune, because who has money to waste these days?
What you need are the everyday E25 earbuds from Raycon.
They're the best ones yet.
Six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more bass, and more compact design that gives you that nice, noise-isolating fit.
Raycon's wireless earbuds are incredibly comfortable.
They're perfect for conference calls, video chats, binging podcasts.
Unlike some of your other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are stylish and discreet, no dangling wires, no stems.
Order Raycon earbuds right now while they are still in stock.
Now is the time to get the latest and the best from Raycon.
Get 15% off your order at buyraycon.com.
One of the things I like about my Raycons, aside from the fact you can get them in a variety of colors, is they really fit your ear.
They're not one size fits all.
They send you this metal card.
It has some rubber pieces on it that you can actually pop onto the earbuds, so it perfectly fits your ear.
Get them at buyraycon.com.
15% off Raycon wireless earbuds.
That's buyraycon.com.
Again, B-U-I-R-A-Y-C-O-N.com.
Buyraycon.com.
Go check them out right now.
As I say, we still don't know the true case fatality rate.
This is what I've been focused on for weeks here.
How has it been weeks and we still don't have antibody tests?
Why has it been left to private entrepreneurs and universities like Stanford to do this testing?
How is it the CDC has not done random antibody testing in hotspots in the United States to determine how many people actually have this thing?
Last week, or actually earlier this week, I reported to you that there was a study that was done in New York where something like 215 pregnant women came in.
And 14% of them had COVID-19, but only 1.9% of them actually had symptoms of COVID-19, which suggests that the vast majority of people who've had COVID-19 or have COVID-19 are asymptomatic.
What that means is that the denominator in your case fatality rate, even in New York City, is really, really high.
Like a lot higher than it has been made out to be.
And now we have another proof of this.
According to one study, the head of Netherlands National Institute for Health, his name is Jaap van Dissel, announced on Thursday that 3% of all people in the Netherlands have the antibody for COVID-19.
Okay, 3%, which is really high.
It sounds low.
I will tell you why that is really actually quite high.
So the Netherlands, as of last night, had 28,383 diagnosed cases in the Netherlands, with 3,327 deaths.
That would mean about an 11% case fatality rate.
Really high.
Basically, you get this thing, you are in serious trouble in the Netherlands.
However, that antibody test shows that 3% of the population of the Netherlands actually already has the antibody, which means they've already had this thing.
That means 518,400 cases of coronavirus based on their population.
They're about 18 million people who live in the Netherlands.
So instead of 29,000 diagnosed cases or 28,000 diagnosed cases, you're talking about an order of magnitude time and then multiply that by two, the number of people who actually have this thing.
So 20 times the number of people have had this thing as the actual reported cases are.
So that means that their case fatality rate in terms of death over number of people who have actually had this thing is not 11%.
It's 0.6%.
It's 0.6%.
It takes it down by a full level of magnitude and then divide that by 2.
It takes it down by a factor of 20.
As you increase the denominator by 20, then you are decreasing the death rate by a factor of 20.
And by the way, again, worthy of note that in the Netherlands, the case fatality rate by age is wildly disparate.
I'm looking at the, this is from Statista.com, looking at the case fatality rate.
The case fatality rate in the Netherlands, which allegedly has an 11% case fatality rate according to the Johns Hopkins coronavirus data.
For everyone under the age of 24, there is a 0% case fatality rate.
25 to 29, .1.
30 to 34, .1.
35 to 39, .1.
40 to 44, .1.
45 to 49, .2.
Then, just like in the United States, it starts to elevate once you hit 50.
35 to 39, 0.1, 40 to 44, 0.1, 45 to 49, 0.2.
Then, just like in the United States, it starts to elevate once you hit 50.
Right, then it's 0.9, 1.5, 2.9 for people who are over the age between 60 and 64, 6.4 for 65 to 69.
And then it starts to really elevate to the point where if you are 80 to 84 years old, there's a 22.4% case fatality rate.
What does this suggest?
It suggests that it's idiotic to treat people who are young and healthy like people who are older when you are trying to come out of this thing.
It just makes no sense.
Beyond that, there is some serious question about exactly how you're gonna test for this thing.
So as we will see, everybody is saying vast testing, vast testing regimens, big testing, temperature checks.
First of all, temperature checks ain't gonna do crap.
Temperature checks are completely useless in my opinion.
The reason I say that they are completely useless is because Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner who's very big on testing, Scott Gottlieb quoted a study yesterday, quote, new study shows that people with COVID-19 may be most infectious before symptoms develop.
So what the hell does a temperature check do?
I can check you for a temperature.
You're asymptomatic.
Doesn't matter.
You just infected the entire office.
So what exactly does a temperature check accomplish?
The answer is nothing.
So if the CDC is recommending temperature checks, that's pretty much useless.
So then the question is, how many antibody tests can be done?
How quickly?
And then the antibody, right, I assume is going to take, you know, a day or two for your body to manufacture the antibody.
But even if that's not the case, how exact are all of these coronavirus tests?
We've been relying on these tests.
Question, what is the failure rate on the coronavirus tests?
If you had coronavirus tests all across the United States, does that pick up everybody?
Because here's the problem.
All you need is one person who's a super spreader to start it spreading in a community again.
Now, coronavirus testing could be useful if it were really, really widespread and identifying hotspots, and then presumably you could do some contact tracing.
But if this thing is so widespread that 3% of the population of the Netherlands already had it and they've been in lockdown, then it's going to be very difficult when people are asymptomatic to determine exactly how you lock this thing down.
The best you can hope for is to lock down some of the hotspots, but you're never going to be able to completely remove it from the population.
And that's why we have to be super accurate about what it is that we were attempting to do with the lockdown in the first place, and what things are going to look like when the lockdown ends.
What things are going to look like when the lockdown ends is, if you have a pre-existing condition or you're elderly, you really shouldn't be going out in public.
Truly.
Like, I would tell my grandparents this.
Both my grandparents are in nursing homes.
Both my grandmothers.
I would not be like, oh yeah, go to the grocery store, even with the mask on.
It's just too risky.
There's no reason for you to do it.
But for me, and my wife, and my kids, you know, there's really no reason for us not to go out.
Now the question becomes whether we should socially distance.
Okay, the only reason to socially distance is because I have parents who are 64, I would prefer not to pass it on to my parents.
But as far as me acquiring it, or my wife acquiring it, or my kids acquiring it, there's not significant risk to them of death that is tremendously in excess of other risks that you go about On a daily basis.
That doesn't mean go and have like coronavirus parties or something where you're infecting anybody else.
But to be accurate about the risks, we ought to be accurate about the risks.
We don't want community spread.
We don't want infecting people who may have pre-existing conditions and are vulnerable and who are not staying indoors.
But, again, as we will see, a lot of measures that are now being attempted, I'm not sure are actually going to be completely effective.
I have serious questions about how this testing regimen that people are talking about is actually going to be implemented on a practical level.
And whether, in fact, we ought to be pursuing a policy that basically says to people, if you are young and you are healthy, go back to work, wear a mask, socially distance so you're not increasing the risk of transmitting this to people who actually are vulnerable.
And that's about all we can do.
At least until there are better treatments that are come up with.
Now in a second I'm going to tell you there are some treatments that are being come up with that could radically change the game.
And that is really, really good news.
There are some treatments that hospitals are now using.
Remember, people keep saying vaccine, vaccine, vaccine.
If a really good treatment comes along that mitigates the risk of coronavirus, then the vaccine is still really useful, but it doesn't become quite as urgent.
It's not like we have to lock down until there's a vaccine if there's a treatment available that mitigates the effects of COVID-19 such that the risk of death goes down dramatically.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that More than ever with this level of economic uncertainty, you need to know your business down to the nitty gritty.
And when the economy opens back up, and when you are ready to go, you need your business to be ready and raring to go on every level.
It needs to be efficient.
It needs to be absolutely hard tax data driven.
This is why you need NetSuite by Oracle, the world's number one cloud business system.
With NetSuite, we give you financials, cash flow, payroll, inventory, and more all in one place to have clear visibility and total control of your business.
NetSuite customers have the flexibility to work from anywhere with immediate clarity on critical information directly at their fingertips.
No more guessing.
No more waiting.
Make smarter decisions with confidence because you've got crystal clear visibility into your numbers.
Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to stay in control.
And right now is a terrible time to blindly stumble through your business.
The fact is, you need to be on top of your data at all times.
We here are at The Daily Wire.
You should be too.
Receive your free guide, Managing Business Uncertainty, and schedule your free product tour right now at netsuite.com.
Don't wait to get that free guide.
Schedule your free product tour at netsuite.com.
That is netsuite.com.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so as I say, as treatments come up, that is also going to suggest that we ought to be opening up society more, right?
If we can lower the death rate fairly dramatically, then of course we ought to be opening society up more on a concomitant basis.
So a couple of good pieces of news.
CNN is reporting that patients are now being turned over on their stomach In the ICU or in the hospital, and that that is actually a pretty effective treatment for getting people oxygen to their lungs.
According to CNN, doctors are finding that placing the sickest coronavirus patients on their stomachs, called prone positioning, helps to increase the amount of oxygen getting to their lungs.
A doctor named Mangala Narasimhan, who works at Long Island Jewish Hospital, said, we're saving lives with this 100%.
He said, it's such a simple thing to do.
We've seen remarkable improvement.
We can see it for every single patient.
Dr. Katherine Hibbert, Director of Medical ICU at Massachusetts General Hospital, says, once you see it work, you want to do it more.
And you see it work almost immediately.
So that is a good piece of data.
Now, ventilated patients require sedation when they are placed on their stomach, which could mean a longer stay in the ICU, for example.
And it might be uncomfortable for a non-sedated patient to spend 16 hours on their stomach, but people are definitely giving it a try.
In even more optimistic news, there was an early peek at data on a Gilead coronavirus drug.
Now, we've heard about this one before, right?
This drug is called Remdesivir.
You've heard President Trump talk about it at some of the press conferences.
This was originally, I believe, an HIV-AIDS drug, Remdesivir.
Okay, and it was one of the first medicines identified as having the potential to impact COVID-19, according to statnews.com.
The entire world has been waiting for results from Gilead's clinical trials.
The University of Chicago Medicine recruited 125 people with COVID-19 into Gilead's two phase three clinical trials.
Of those people, 113 had severe disease.
All the patients were treated with daily infusions of Remdesivir.
The results have not yet been released, but there was a tape of a University of Chicago infectious disease specialist talking about this study and it leaked.
Her name is Kathleen Mullane.
She said, the best news is that most of our patients have already been discharged, which is great.
We've had only two patients perish.
The discussion was recorded.
Stan obtained a copy of the video.
The outcomes offer only a snapshot of Remdesivir's effectiveness.
The same trials are being concurrently run at other institutions.
It's impossible to determine the full study results with any certainty.
Still, no other clinical data from the Gilead studies have been released to date.
Excitement is high.
Gilead said in a statement on Thursday, what we can say at this stage is that we look forward to data from ongoing studies becoming available, which is basically they're not going to release the information as of yet.
One of the reasons that people don't release preliminary information is because it creates holdups with things like the New England Journal of Medicine.
Malayne said, "When we start the drug, we see fever curves falling." She says, "Fever is not now a requirement for people to go on trial.
We do see when patients come in with high fevers, they do reduce quite quickly.
We've seen people come off ventilators a day after starting therapy.
So overall, our patients have done well.
Most of our patients are severe.
Most of them are leaving at six days.
So that tells us duration of therapy doesn't have 10 days." The University of Chicago Medicine said that drawing conclusions at this point is premature and scientifically unsound.
That's not stopping people from, of course, being deeply optimistic about this, which, again, I don't think is a problem.
I think being optimistic about things is okay.
You just have to recognize that there is an inherent amount of uncertainty.
When these studies have not yet been fully vetted.
Meanwhile, as I say, we're going to have to get used to the idea that a vaccine may be a ways off and that a vaccine may not even work because the virus is mutating.
The question is whether it's mutating in such a way that it makes the disease not vaccine vulnerable.
That vaccines only work on diseases where the disease does not change in a certain way particularly fast.
So measles, right?
It changes, but it doesn't change in such a way that the vaccine won't work on it.
Flu changes, and it changes in such a way that the vaccine only works on certain strains of the flu.
So one of the questions is whether coronavirus is going to be vulnerable to vaccines or not.
According to the New York Times, it's unclear how mutations in the genome will ultimately affect countermeasures like a vaccine.
So we may have to get used to the idea that a vaccine is a little ways away.
And as I mentioned before, people are most transmissive when they are asymptomatic.
So with all of that said, we can see that there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty and we are going to have to steer into the uncertainty.
There is no certainty here.
There is no world where the cases go down to zero.
There is no world Where everything is hunky-dory and then we just all go back to normal?
We are going to have to accept a certain level of raised risk in our lives for any level of lockdown to come to an end.
And you can see that really most, not even in the United States, you can see it most in places like Singapore.
Germany is beginning to gradually reopen their economy next week.
They had lockdown in January.
Singapore has reopened and Singapore saw a new daily high of 728 cases yesterday.
So a second wave is likely to happen.
This is why when people were ripping on Sweden for having a more open society, and they're saying, well look, they've had an increased risk of people dying and getting infected.
Right, because their society is more open.
That is just what is going to happen.
You're not going to know whether Sweden made the right call for a year.
One year from now, if you come back and Sweden has had way more deaths on a per capita basis than other countries around it, then you're going to say Sweden made the wrong call.
But, if Sweden ends up about the same as the other countries around it, or in the ballpark, and they didn't shut down their economy, everybody's going to be asking whether Sweden had this thing right from the beginning, and whether deep-scale lockdowns were actually the correct solution from the very beginning.
Again, Singapore is seeing a second wave.
And this is what I've been complaining about for a while, is that people are not being honest about what the second wave looks like.
I've been saying this for weeks.
I've said all the studies that were being cited did not take into account a second wave, that University of Washington study.
People, when they said lockdown, lockdown, lockdown, the question was what happens the minute we stop locking down?
Aren't we just going to go out and reinfect one another?
And the fact is, we do need to get out there.
We do need to change the direction of the economy.
22 million Americans have filed for unemployment in the past four weeks.
In four weeks!
That is the fastest spike in unemployment in American history, and it is not close.
It is not close.
The charts are absolutely stunning.
Initial jobless claims per week, when it got really bad in 2008-2009, you were seeing about half a million initial jobless claims per week at like the very beginning of 2009.
We saw 22 million in four weeks in the United States.
This cannot go on.
It cannot go on this way.
It just can't.
We're going to get to that in just one second, and then we're going to get to President Trump's plan to reopen.
Because let's be real about this also, Democrats right now are holding hostage more small business funds.
So at the same time that they are suggesting that lockdowns continue, and again, it's a bipartisan thing.
There's some people who want lockdowns to continue, some people who want lockdowns alleviated, but along sort of grassroots partisan lines, Democrats largely want to see the lockdowns continue, and Republicans largely want to see the lockdowns come to an end ASAP.
With all of that said, and again, it's not a completely partisan issue, but it does seem to be in sort of public opinion polling breaking down along partisan lines.
For the Democrats to be holding up small business aid at this point, which is the only thing keeping people's income afloat, is really insane.
And Nancy Pelosi was doing some of that yesterday.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact there has literally been no better time not to go to the post office, like ever in human history.
You're going there and you're in line and you're handling packages.
You don't know how long all this stuff lasts on packages.
Now is a great time not to go to the post office, right?
You're at home anyway.
You can't really go to the post office.
It's not really a luxury that most people are willing to undertake.
Why not do all of this from home?
This is where stamps.com comes in.
Here at Daily Wire, we've used stamps.com since 2017.
We've been saving ourselves time and we've been saving ourselves money.
Stamps.com brings the services of the U.S.
Postal Service directly to your computer in the safety and comfort of your own home, office, anywhere else you are hunkering down Right now.
Whether you're a small business sending invoices and online sellers shipping out products, or you're just working from home and you need to mail stuff, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
And once your mail is ready, you leave it for your mail carrier, you schedule a free package pickup, you drop it in a mailbox.
No human contact required.
It's that simple.
Plus, you get five cents off every first-class stamp, up to 40% off USPS shipping rates.
Right now, Stamps.com is also offering UPS services with discounts up to 62%.
And you're not going to have to pay UPS residential surcharges.
So this is super easy.
Right now, my listener's got a special offer.
It includes a four-week trial plus free postage and digital scale without any long-term commitment.
Just go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in Shapiro.
That is Stamps.com.
Enter Shapiro.
Stay safe in there.
Stamps.com.
Enter Shapiro.
Alrighty, we're going to get to Nancy Pelosi holding up small business aid, which is just insane.
I mean, truly, it's crazy at this time.
We're going to get to that, and we're going to get to President Trump's plan to reopen businesses.
What's right about it?
What's wrong about it?
We'll get to that in just one moment.
First, it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire subscriber.
Today, it's Cameron, aka SirTurkle, on Instagram, experiencing one of life's greatest blessings in the midst of a global pandemic.
In this picture, Cameron is holding a tiny baby, swaddled up fast asleep next to the world's greatest beverage vessel.
The caption reads, Peter Thomas Turk, born during this crazy time, is gonna make it through being nourished by the plentiful supply of leftist tears.
Hashtag leftist tears Tumblr.
Hashtag Daily Wire.
Do not feed babies tears, guys.
You just go with the breast milk.
It's fine.
Amazing.
You are already winning at the parenting game.
Thanks for the picture of that.
That's a cute baby.
That's a cute baby.
Congrats on the growing family.
Also, being locked inside right now, it requires double the excitement.
What could be more exciting than a second leftist tears Tumblr?
Woo-hoo-hoo!
Yes!
Well, right now, when you become a Daily Wire Insider Plus or All Access member, you get a second left-to-steers tumbler.
I am not fibbing.
I am not kidding.
With Bernie Sanders out of the race for the presidency, one Tumblr wasn't enough to hold all of the tears.
Head on over to DailyWire.com right now.
DailyWire members get lots of amazing benefits, including, of course, the magnificent, the irreplaceable, the singular Leftist Tears Tumblr.
You also get an ad-free website experience, access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, the full three hours of The Ben Shapiro Show, access to the mailbag, and now, exclusive Election Insight op-eds from me.
Daily Wire members also get to ask us questions during backstage.
You also get to participate in All Access Live.
That's our brand new interactive programming featuring one of the Daily Wire hosts as we hang out with you each night at 8 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Pacific.
Who is it tonight?
I don't even know who it is tonight.
In any case, we have one of our hosts every night.
Again, become an Insider Plus All Access member.
Double your tiers with two leftist tiers.
Tumblr, head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
And get 10% off with coupon code SHAPIRO.
So you get two tumblers and 10% off with the coupon code SHAPIRO.
That is dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Coupon code SHAPIRO.
Get the rarest of all beverage vessels times two.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So Nancy Pelosi has been holding up a small business fund refills.
So the small business fund ran out like immediately because pretty much every small business in America needs a loan.
Every small business in America has been forcibly shut down by government.
And I saw some libertarians over the weekend who are sort of making the claim that it is anti-libertarian principle to take the small business loans.
And as I have said, this is a taking, okay?
According to libertarian principle, if the government forces you to, if the government were to drive a railroad through your backyard, they would have to compensate you for that.
If the government were to drive a railroad through your house, they'd have to compensate you for that.
The government is driving a railroad right through your business right now.
They need to compensate you for that.
They shut down your business for public purposes without just compensation.
To take compensation for that is not anti-libertarian.
It makes perfect sense.
The government imposed the costs.
The government has to pay for the backside of all of that.
And if you don't like it, by the way, vote out the politicians.
If you want the government to not do this sort of thing, then have different politicians.
Well, right now, the Paycheck Protection Program is in limbo.
The Small Business Administration said on Thursday it ran out of money within, like, two weeks.
Millions of businesses unable to apply for the loans, while Congress struggled to reach a deal to replenish the funds.
Congress initially allocated $349 billion for the program that was intended to provide loans to businesses with 500 or fewer employees.
The money went out quickly.
More than 1.4 million loans approved as of Wednesday evening.
They can't issue more loans until more money has actually been put forth by Congress.
Naturally, Democrats are holding it up.
President Trump says we need more funding.
These small businesses are keeping people's paychecks going.
I mean, one of the conditions, by the way, of actually taking a loan from the Paycheck Protection Program is that you have to continue to pay your employees.
If you don't continue to pay, I think it's 90% of your employees at 90% of their salary or something like that, then you can't actually receive a loan.
So people are getting the checks that are allowing them to sustain themselves during this time because of this program.
Here's Trump saying we need to refill the fund.
We're negotiating with Democrats and they should, frankly, approve it quickly.
This is a great thing for our country.
It's a great thing for small business and for the workers.
And we're having a hard time getting them to approve it.
I think it's going to happen.
It should happen really unanimously.
But they're trying to get things and we're not too happy with what they're trying to get.
Okay, and that's exactly right.
If you look at what the Democrats are trying to dump into this program, according to the Wall Street Journal, Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have called for further changes to the program, plus significantly increased funding for disaster grants and loans, which is unrelated, plus additional support for food stamps, which is unrelated.
Plus, collection and publication of demographic data so we can accurately determine the level of impact on underserved communities and communities of color.
Because it deeply matters right now how we gather data on racial differences.
By the way, if you're looking for correlative differences in how this stuff is affecting people, then there are two cross-cutting factors that matter a hell of a lot more than race.
Poverty and pre-existing conditions.
Poverty, pre-existing conditions, and age are the three things that matter.
I can tell you why the Democrats are trying to break it down this way.
Because again, they're going back to the well.
The suggestion is, and they're making this suggestion fairly obvious, that if Trump mishandles this thing, that he has done so because he is racist.
That is what they are going to suggest.
They're going to suggest that differentials in treatment are because of underlying racism.
They did the same exact bullcrap with George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina.
The suggestion was not that Bush just botched Hurricane Katrina.
It's that he botched Hurricane Katrina because he didn't care enough for black people.
And they're going to do exactly the same thing here.
They're setting up the groundwork for an identity politics move here, and it's disgusting.
It really is.
I'm fine with you gathering any sort of data you want to gather, but if the implication is that America isn't doing enough for black people because they are black, as opposed to black people are dying at higher rates because black people are more likely to be suffering from pre-existing conditions, and if you want to connect that to historic poverty, You can try, but some of it has to do also with the fact that eating habits matter, that where you live matters.
There are certain factors that crosscut race and are much more correlative than race itself.
Democrats are trying to boil it down to race, as they always do.
As the Wall Street Journal says, identity politics and social pork barrel trump jobs and business solvency.
Nancy Pelosi was explaining why she was rejecting small loans to businesses while showing off $24,000 fridges in the background.
Listen, I don't begrudge anybody owning a $24,000 fridge.
Nancy Pelosi is a very, very wealthy person.
She was on with James Corden, who is broadcasting from home.
And again, owning expensive things, you have a right to do it.
I'm just wondering why it is that Nancy Pelosi wants to prohibit people from getting the loans they need to sustain their businesses while she stands in front of her fancy fridges.
Speaker Pelosi, what have you found?
What are you going to share with us from your home?
Chocolate.
Really?
Chocolate, chocolate candy.
Oh, wow.
And this is something you can get through the mail.
OK.
Run out.
Now show me.
Yeah, absolutely.
This is the episode of Cribs.
I never knew I needed.
Oh, my.
Wow.
Other people in our family go for some other fritters.
I'm all for the beautiful fridge, but I'm not going to take it from Nancy Pelosi when she says she doesn't have enough data to back a refill of the small business funding.
She said that also.
She doesn't have enough data.
Because Democrats, one thing we know about Democrats is they need data on how government programs work before they extend them.
We know this, right?
Like Head Start, if they had all the data, they would just extend that sucker.
Or alternatively, Democrats just spend no matter what because they assume the data don't matter.
That throwing money at things works, except when the money is being thrown at small business.
Here's Nancy Pelosi refusing to throw money at small business at a time when government is actively destroying small businesses.
We, again, support what we did with the PPP.
But we want to make sure that as it gets more money, it gets many more people get access to the credit.
There have been some questions asked about the money may be committed, but we haven't, many of us have not received it.
So that's all, that's as I say back to Chairwoman Velasco saying we want the data.
We want the data.
Yeah, I'm sure you want the data.
I'm sure it's just that you need rigorous oversight of government spending.
This is where Democrats are famous.
Rigorous oversight of government spending.
When it's government wasting money on absolute bullcrap stupidity, then the Democrats are like, all in.
But when it comes to, we need to help businesses that have been prohibited from doing business, then they're like, you know, we need the data.
We need hard data right now.
Okay, so all of this, because businesses are being shut down, because people are losing their jobs.
22 million Americans out of jobs.
Protests are breaking out across the country.
We're seeing protests in places like Michigan, There was a protest about 3,000 people in Lansing, Michigan.
People jamming the streets around the state capitol, shouting that they want things reopened.
In Frankfort, Kentucky, dozens of people shouted through a capitol building window.
In Raleigh, North Carolina, one woman was arrested during a protest that drew more than 100 people.
No, I will say, I think that protesting in favor of reopening is not a bad thing.
I think protesting in favor of reopening while standing right next to each other and breathing on them and sharing food is a dumb thing.
I think it's a dumb thing.
I think it's dumb PR.
Folks, if you're going to do protests, let me make a recommendation.
Socially distance and wear masks during the protests.
It takes away the baton the media want to use against you.
The media want to suggest that you are out there protesting because you don't care about the impacts of coronavirus and because you don't mind if it spreads.
So why don't you socially distance during the protest and tell the media, yeah, we don't want to spread this thing, but we need to go back to work.
It takes the baton right out of their hands.
And the whole hog rejection of sort of basic scientific limits is very stupid PR, at least on that level.
But I certainly understand the emotion that says we need to open this thing up again.
So does President Trump, by the way.
So Trump Yesterday announced that he has a plan for states to open relatively soon.
He's doing this the right way.
He's saying states are in charge of how this program works, right?
States are going to determine exactly how they reopen.
He says some states could open relatively soon.
And of course, this is right.
Not all states are equivalent.
No state is New York.
New York is New York.
No place else is New York.
I think 29 states are in that ballgame, not for opening, but I think they'll be able to open relatively soon.
I think the remainder are just getting better.
Look, New York, New Jersey are having very tough times.
And they'll be there.
They'll be there at some point.
But they're not going to be one of the earlier states.
They're going to be later, obviously.
But we have a lot of states that, through location, through luck, and also through a lot of talent — we have states through a lot of talent that are in a very good position, and they're getting ready to open.
And over the next very short period of time, it's going to be up to the governors.
That's true.
And President Trump also laid out what he said was his basic plan for reopening yesterday.
So let's go through these guidelines, because I think there's a lot here that's good, and I think that there's a lot here that is too optimistic, shall we say.
It's setting the standards too high for reopening, because as I have said, In a quick and dirty fashion, the reality is we're all going to end up like Sweden.
We're all going to end up saying to young people and to kids and to adults who are healthy, we are going to say to them, go out, live your lives, wear a mask, socially distance, and that's about all we can do.
And if you're vulnerable and if you're elderly, Then you should probably stay in until treatments have been found.
That's basically what Sweden has been doing.
And you know what?
I'm not sure that Sweden is wrong.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that Sweden is probably correct.
Okay, so here are the criteria that's been set out by the White House.
So they have a proposed phased approach based on up-to-date data and readiness.
This is from the White House website, WhiteHouse.gov opening America.
So, they want to satisfy, before proceeding to phased comeback, a downward trajectory of influenza-like illnesses reported within a 14-day period, and a downward trajectory of COVID-like syndromic cases reported within a 14-day period.
They want a downward trajectory of documented cases within the 14-day period, or a downward trajectory of positive tests as a percentage of total tests within a 14-day period, so it declines every day for 14 days.
They want hospitals to be able to treat all patients without crisis care and robust testing programs in place for at-risk healthcare workers, including emerging antibody testing.
Okay, so here's the problem with this.
This is actually kind of a problem.
The minute that you release people from lockup, the minute you release people from lockup, you'll see an uptick in cases.
You just saw it in Singapore, right?
You saw an uptick in cases.
So does that break the 14-day downgrade?
So let's say you have 14 days where it's going down every day.
Day one, you say to young people, go back out, we're reopening the schools.
Uptick in cases.
Does everybody go back into lockdown?
How does that actually work?
Okay, the answer is it's not going to be able to work that way.
After there's the 14-day, okay, that's got to be a one-time thing.
Like, okay, we're getting this book.
Again, what was the purpose of the lockdown?
I was informed that the purpose of the lockdown was to flatten the curve so we didn't overwhelm our healthcare system.
We've done that, right?
We have not overwhelmed our healthcare system.
Particularly every place outside of New York.
There's no evidence that any place outside of New York City has seen an overwhelming of the healthcare system.
Or we haven't seen it even in the hotspots like Detroit and New Orleans.
There's really not been a lot of evidence that people are going without ventilators.
Even in New York, Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo have said there are not people who are waiting for ventilators who can't get ventilators.
Right?
We've handled this thing.
And all of the IHME studies that you dub study, right?
That study was projecting hospital bed and ICU usage and ventilator usage far beyond what actually materialized.
Okay, so if we have flattened the curve below that point, then you have to assume that there will be a second wave of infections when you come back.
And that doesn't mean you shut down again.
Okay, so that's problem number one with this plan.
Okay, so state and local officials, according to the White House, may need to tailor the application of these criteria to local circumstances.
For example, metropolitan areas that have suffered severe COVID outbreaks.
Additionally, where appropriate, governors should work on a regional basis to satisfy these criteria.
Okay, then core state preparedness responsibilities.
Ability to set up safe and efficient screening and testing sites for symptomatic individuals and trace contact of COVID plus results.
Okay, so this is a problem.
Problem number one.
You want to set up efficient and safe screening for symptomatic individuals.
We know that asymptomatic individuals are the people who actually spread this the most.
So that's actually not super helpful.
As I say, I think the standards here are too high.
I don't think the standards are reachable.
I think that if anybody ever held actually true to the White House standards, no one reopens ever.
That's one of the problems with the White House standards.
So the left is saying these standards are too loose.
I'm saying I'm not even sure these standards are practical in terms of reaching the standard where you can reopen, except in rural areas where they're not bothering to do any testing.
In fact, this creates an incentive not to do the testing, simply so you can say that your area is going to reopen.
You have to ensure Sentinel surveillance sites are screening for asymptomatic cases and contacts for COVID plus results are traced.
So that means that you have to have asymptomatic screening at places that serve older individuals, lower income Americans, racial minorities, Native Americans.
How?
How are you going to do this?
You have to have the ability to surge ICU capacity.
This is right.
The ICU capacity and the ventilators and the hospitals have to be able to do what they need to do, but that's about all you can do.
And then they have to have a plan for advising citizens regarding protocols for social distancing and all of the rest.
For individuals, they continue to say, don't touch your face, wash your hands with soap and water, especially after you touch frequently used items or surfaces and discard frequently used items as much as possible.
If you feel sick, you should stay home.
But again, that's not going to help because you're asymptomatic a lot of the time.
They're saying that employers should have temperature checks.
Again, I don't know what the purpose of temperature checks is.
Everybody in my office could have it right now.
I wouldn't know.
They're asymptomatic.
Like, you don't know, especially among younger people.
You're going to need to limit business travel, presumably, to sort of essential business travel, which of course continues to kill the airlines.
And then phase one, all vulnerable individuals should continue to shelter in place.
Members of households with vulnerable residents should be aware that by returning to work, they could carry the virus back home.
Precautions should be taken to isolate from vulnerable residents.
When in public, you should maximize physical distance, right?
All of this, this part is fine.
Employers should continue to encourage telework.
They should return to work in phases.
They should close common areas like kitchens.
Minimize non-essential travel.
All of that is fine.
Specific types of employers.
They're saying that schools and organized youth activities in phase one should remain closed.
Visits to senior living facilities and hospitals should be prohibited.
Large venues can operate under strict physical distancing during protocols.
That would be sit-down dining, moving theaters, sporting venues.
So they would reopen restaurants, but you'd have to socially distance.
You can go back to church, but you have to have like one person per pew, that sort of thing.
And then they suggest that gyms could open if they adhere to strict physical distancing and sanitation protocols.
Remember, all of this is just guidance for states.
States can still do what they want.
States are still going to be the chief actors here.
That's all phase one.
Phase two, for states and regions with no evidence of a rebound, all vulnerable individuals should continue to shelter in place.
All individuals should continue to should maximize physical distance from each other.
Non-essential travel can resume.
And then you continue to encourage telework, close common areas, consider special accommodations for personnel members of a vulnerable population.
Schools and organized youth activities can reopen.
Visits to senior care facilities and hospitals should continue to be prohibited.
Large venues still continue that.
You can have elective surgeries and gyms and bars that start to reopen.
Then finally, phase three is states and regions with no evidence of a rebound and satisfy the gating criteria a third time.
Finally, vulnerable individuals can resume public interactions.
Employers can resume unrestricted staffing of work sites, visits to senior care facilities.
So my question is not what happens once you get to phase 2 and phase 3.
That all looks fine.
My question is how you even hit phase 1.
How are you going to hit phase 1?
Bottom line is that they also suggest that elderly individuals should basically stay home throughout, which is right.
In the end, that's what's going to end up happening.
In the end, what's going to end up happening is that if you feel that you can take the risk, you're going to go out.
And if you have parents who are vulnerable, you're not going to see them for a while.
That's what's going to happen.
You're going to hope for treatment that develops.
That's what this is going to end up being for most states.
Any state that does not end up doing that, it's just a question of time, right?
New York is going to say that they're going to take their sweet time about it.
They're going to end up in the same place.
Honestly, if New York wanted to stop this thing, they should have shut down the subways in the first place.
There's a study from MIT that suggests that the subways were the chief spreading mechanism, which makes perfect sense.
I've been suggesting that for weeks.
But all over the country, there will be a reopening.
People are hungry for the reopening.
And as we find out from the antibody testing, that I think a multiple of the number of people who supposedly have this thing have had this thing, people are going to feel that the risk is worth undertaking if they are young, if they are healthy, if they do not feel that they are going to be deeply affected and as the treatments get better.
So we're going to see a gradual reopening, and I think the reopening is going to happen sooner rather than later.
I think the White House response is actually too restrictive in phase one.
But I think once we hit the phases, that's basically how this is going to roll out.
OK, so we've reached the end of today's show.
We are out of time because we have to go and do other things.
But we have two additional hours of content coming later today.
We also have a great Sunday special coming up for you.
This week we're going to be talking to Scott Gottlieb over at the former FDA commissioner about his plan for reopening.
I'm going to ask him questions about testing.
I'm going to ask him questions about antibody testing.
How effective can all this be?
How fast can it be ramped up?
I'm going to be talking with Steve Forbes about the business side of this.
How exactly does business survive?
How does business undergo permanent change?
So you're going to want to check that out as well.
Otherwise, head on over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
Any level of membership gets access to our awesome new features including the Great all-access shows that we are doing on a regular basis.
I think we have a backstage next week also, a socially distanced backstage, which we'll do next week.
So all sorts of goodies.
Otherwise, have yourself a safe and secure and excellent weekend.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
Directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Assistant director Pavel Lydowsky.
Technical producer Austin Stevens.
Playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan.
Associate producer Katie Swinnerton.
Edited by Adam Siovitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
I think there are enough of those already out there.
We talk about culture, because culture drives politics, and it drives everything else.
So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.
▲
Export Selection