Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 15, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

51:45

Episode 914 Scott Adams: The Best Simultaneous Sip EVER is Right Here

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Content: Adam Townsend's provocative Antifa question My opinion on going back to work Antibody flawed testing Withhold funding from WHO? Candace Owens not wearing mask in Whole Foods --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, come on in.
	It's time for the Simultaneous Sip.
	Coffee with Scott Adams.
	Aren't you glad you're here? I'm glad you're here.
	Otherwise I'd be talking to myself.
	And that's crazy. If you'd like to participate in what promises to be I think I can say this with some confidence.
	The best simultaneous sip ever.
	It's coming up.
	Really soon. And all you need to participate is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hint of the day.
	The thing that makes everything better, including the pandemic, it's called the simultaneous sip.
	Happens now. Go.
	I was right.
	I was right.
	Did you feel that?
	Best one ever, right?
	I thought so. Nailed it.
	Alright, let's talk about all the things.
	There are many things and we should talk about them.
	Adam Townsend asked this provocative question on Twitter.
	He says, why isn't Antifa, the anti-fascists, protesting lockdown's fascism elements?
	And I thought to myself, yeah.
	Why is Antifa not protesting the government telling people to do stuff, like stay home and don't go to work?
	Isn't that exactly what they're supposed to be doing?
	Or more generally, did somebody stop paying Antifa?
	Because I feel like they got really quiet.
	You know, not just because of the virus, but did Antifa just go away?
	And if Antifa just went away, did they take Black Lives Matter with them?
	Have you heard of Black Lives Matter lately?
	Have they done anything lately?
	So it seems to me that Antifa and Black Lives Matter just sort of disappeared, didn't they?
	Did you notice they were gone?
	Just you wake up one day and there's no Antifa and you don't really notice and the day goes by and there's no Black Lives Matter and the next thing you know, a year has gone by and you haven't heard from them.
	It feels like a year for Black Lives Matter.
	Antifa more recently, I suppose.
	Anyway, it's a good question.
	Now, I would like to remind you, because I'm getting lots of heat from people online, for what they imagine is my opinion.
	You know, the normal thing for Twitter is that I would say 80% of all the critics I've ever had are complaining about something they imagine, I think, or they imagine I said, or they imagine I did, but I didn't.
	So, With that in mind, I thought I would clarify my opinion.
	And I can see why it's confusing.
	So on January 24th, I was loudly and with much profanity saying we should close travel from China because China had closed Wuhan the day before.
	And I quite reasonably thought if China's going to close Wuhan, Maybe we should close flights from China, because whatever they're looking at, we don't want that.
	Now, closing flights from China is a very small cost relative to what we're seeing now, the close down of the entire economy, or much of it.
	And to me, that seemed like a completely reasonable insurance cost.
	When you buy insurance, If you don't have a car accident, you can't say the insurance was wasted because you buy it to manage your risk.
	You know, it's not wasted if you don't need it.
	That's what insurance is.
	It's just in case.
	And so, to me, closing the flights from China was like an insurance model.
	It's like, it probably won't make a difference, but it might.
	And if it did make a difference, it would be a big difference.
	So I was very forcefully and early on closing flights, but I think this is where people get confused.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	I don't believe that I've ever offered an opinion about the lockdown or whether we should go back to work or how.
	You know, when, how.
	I mean, I've offered suggestions of how it would look, but I've not...
	Can anybody confirm that?
	I've not offered an opinion on whether we're being too restrictive or not restrictive enough.
	And what's confusing is I have criticized the thinking or the information from people on both sides of the argument.
	So I think people believe that if you criticize somebody's argument that you're on the other side.
	That's not the case.
	What's the other side?
	Why is there even an other side about a medical slash economic question?
	None of us know the right answer.
	But we can certainly identify when somebody's thinking about it in a, let's say, a less useful way.
	So I've been quite aggressive trying to correct people's way of thinking, which is completely different from telling them my opinion and doing that.
	But enough time has gone by.
	And enough things have happened that I feel like I'm comfortable giving you my opinion now.
	So this will be the first time you've heard my opinion about what we should do in terms of going back to work.
	I'm somewhat influenced by what we've learned so far.
	I'm influenced by the reaction of the public Which is a big variable.
	I take the emotions, the feelings, just the energy that the public is putting in this.
	Those are gigantic variables.
	But here's sort of what I might call the last straw that makes it easy to have my opinion.
	Because even the last 24 hours, I was thinking, I don't know, I think I could go firm on an opinion.
	But I'm waiting.
	And then I saw this.
	Apparently Nancy Pelosi was on one of the late night shows, and she was doing a remote tour of her refrigerators in her home to show how she was stocking up, I don't know, for the pandemic or just for fun.
	And she's standing in front of two sub-zero refrigerators.
	The total cost of her refrigerators, just the refrigerators, the two of them, It's more than most people earn in a year.
	And she opens it up and it's well-stocked in her mansion with ice cream and stuff.
	And I think other people had a similar response, which is our multi-million dollar leaders don't seem to have...
	I don't think they're reading the room right.
	You know what I mean? If Nancy Pelosi is showing us How much food she has stocked in her two expensive side-by-side sub-zero freezers, I don't think she's reading the room right.
	Do you? That feels so out of touch with whatever is the experience of the working class and the people who are suffering this week.
	That was sort of like a final straw for me.
	It just made it easy to have an opinion.
	Here's my opinion. My opinion on this is similar to, but different, from my opinion about how we should come up with abortion laws.
	And my opinion on abortion is that men should just stay out of it, except for the money decisions.
	We should be involved in money.
	And I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to talk about it.
	You can do whatever you want. I'm just saying you get a more credible decision if whatever we come up with is what the majority of women support.
	Because they have more skin in the game, you know, for all the obvious reasons.
	So I'm not saying that men should not have a vote or, you know, I'm not taking away your right to talk about it or anything.
	I'm just saying if you want the most credible set of laws, whichever way they go, pro-abortion, against abortion, the most credible is the ones that women as majorities support.
	Likewise, and learning from that, but it's a different situation, obviously.
	Analogies are not exact.
	But taking from that, and I look at the decision to go back to work, I'm pretty sure that my decision about my personal risk should be irrelevant.
	And I've tried to hold that to be true, because it would be real easy for me to say, you know, and this is true, my personal experience isn't that bad.
	I'm literally in a mansion that I built to have everything I want.
	My income pretty much is going to go down 75% when newspapers go out of business by the end of the year, I think.
	So I'm taking a big hit, but not like somebody who lost a job.
	I'm not taking a hit like somebody who can't pay their rent.
	I'm not in that category.
	From a moral and ethical perspective, I would not try to take my specific, unique situation and say, well, let's run the country based on what's good for Scott.
	So I've been waiting to see, not only if we can learn more about the facts of the virus, who's getting it, etc., how deadly is it, what treatments do we have, and all that.
	But also, importantly, I was trying to read the room.
	And try to find out where the country's at.
	Because it doesn't matter if you think we should do something if you know the country won't do it.
	There's no point in talking about what you should do if it's impractical.
	It doesn't fit with the mood of the country.
	And here's my read.
	Of the mood of the country.
	I realize this could be off a little bit because I probably see more traffic on social media from one type of person than another.
	But here's my take on it.
	I believe that the country as a whole, and again, so far this is not my opinion.
	I'll tell you when I get to my opinion.
	The country's opinion as a consensus seems to be very strongly, this is my sense of it, could be wrong, It seems to me that the sense of the country is moving very much toward they'd rather open up, go back to work, even if it does cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
	So that's my read of the room, is that the country was sort of waiting and seeing, you know, but at the moment, and certainly the direction of things, is moving very strongly, this is my feel for it, very strongly toward If our only choice is that people die now or later,
	which seems to be the only choice, because we don't have a vaccine, basically a lot of people aren't going to get this thing, I think the country has decided to take the risk.
	And I'm looking at the comments, and I realize that I think the people on this periscope are not exactly a random subsection of the planet.
	But I was very much trying to figure out if people were speaking only selfishly.
	Like, I was trying to get a sense.
	Alright, are you only talking about yourself, that it's better for you to go back to work?
	Let's say you're young, you don't have much risk.
	Or are you really thinking about what's good for the country?
	Because it's hard to sort those out.
	And I've come to a decision that it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter if other people are thinking about their own personal situation or if other people are thinking about what's good for the country.
	It kind of doesn't matter because they're both moving in the same direction of what's good for the country and what's good for the individuals is starting to look the same as in time to open up.
	So this will be the first time you've heard my opinion.
	My opinion is I would like to support the consensus I'm not positive the consensus opinion is in my best interest.
	But, do I or do I not have the freedom to stay hiding in my house as long as I want?
	I do. I do have the freedom to hide in my house as long as I want, if I want to manage my own risk.
	So, for the good of the country, the good of the world, it does seem to me we've reached a turning point.
	I think the President senses it as well.
	Everything he says suggests to me that he's got just exactly the same feeling.
	On day one, it's very hard to say, hey country, I think you should go out and accept, I don't know, a million deaths, 200,000, whatever the number is.
	I think you should just go out and accept those because I might not be one of them.
	Because even though I'm in a risk group, I know I can hide.
	And I'll get good health care if something happens.
	But a lot of elderly people will die.
	And I think we've just gotten to the point where people sort of thought about it for a long time.
	They looked at their own situation.
	They looked at the big picture.
	And I think people have just made a decision.
	I think people have made a decision.
	And I also don't think it matters what the government thinks at this point.
	Because I think the public...
	This is my read of the room.
	My feeling is the public has decided to go back to work.
	The government can't stop us all.
	The government can pretend to be in charge, and the governors can pretend to be in charge too.
	But ultimately, it really is up to the public.
	Because if the public decided on May 1st, hey, you had your chance, I'm going back to work today, Well, there aren't enough police in the world to arrest them.
	And by the way, the police would probably just go back to work, too.
	So, you know, it's sort of a fantasy that the government is in charge.
	They're in charge if we let them.
	The government is in charge if they have credibility.
	The government is in charge if they have more information than we do, and we're like, okay, you know more than I do.
	But in this situation, I believe the government and the people...
	Have pretty much the same information.
	Am I right? I don't believe that President Trump really has some kind of secret information that you and I don't have.
	It doesn't look like it. So I think we're perfectly capable to make this decision collectively.
	And we've decided.
	So the question about whether the governor should be the main people making the decisions for their states versus the president, I think that's obvious, isn't it?
	Is there anyone who disagrees with that, that the governors are closer to the situation and they should manage the specifics of their state?
	I think we all agree with that, right?
	Would anybody disagree?
	So I think your government is doing exactly what you'd want them to do.
	The federal government is just being helpful, but they're also saying, Trump says this clearly, it's the governor's decision, we just want to help, but if they do something grotesquely wrong, We're going to get involved.
	That's about as good as you can get, really.
	What's better than that?
	Describe any situation that would be better than what the president has offered to us.
	I can't think of one.
	It's the best one I can think of.
	So, that's where I'm at.
	The governors can decide, but if they don't have a plan that looks like a real plan in the next couple weeks, The public will decide.
	Right? You know, the governors get first chance, but if they don't decide, or it doesn't look like a real plan that actually gets us to work, I think the public will decide.
	So I think we're getting back to work, and I think that we have decided as a civilization, decided as a country, That, let me say it in the most, the starkest terms.
	You ready? Because I don't think we should enter a decision like this.
	Because, you know, this is a big, it's a big expense either way you go, right?
	Keep the economy closed, people die.
	Open it up, people die. So these are adult decisions, and I think we ought to be able to talk about them plainly.
	And let me talk about it plainly right now.
	Turns out, That the so-called greatest generation has one more war.
	So the people who lived through World War II probably thought they were done with big wars.
	But it turns out that they're right back in it.
	And the people who will take the most casualties in this war It's the same group whose age group took the most casualties in World War II. So we are asking the greatest generation to take one more for the team.
	And you could have no clear situation.
	I mean, it's as clear as World War II. You know, the people who went off and fought, they knew they were saving the country.
	They knew that. Likewise, we would be asking these people in their 80s, part of the greatest generation, to have a pretty high casualty rate.
	And again, it would be for the good of the country.
	It's not about their individual situation.
	We would be asking them to sacrifice for the country.
	So here's the question.
	Do you think the greatest generation is up for it?
	I say yes.
	Now, Of course, every individual will have their own independent opinion, so they're not all yes.
	But what would lead us to believe that the greatest generation has changed?
	I don't know that they have.
	I think if you gave them the choice, you know, the ones who are still mentally alert, if you went to your people who lived through World War II and say, look, Could you take another, you know, can you take one more war?
	Can you fight one more war for the whole country?
	What would they say?
	I think they say yes.
	I think they say yes.
	So, Tucker Carlson last night had a doctor slash scientist, I don't know what he was, some expert, and he was saying that he has a strong suspicion, it's not confirmed, But that the virus has already spread much farther than we know.
	Now, if it's spread much farther than we know, the implication was that that's good news, because it would suggest that the death rate of the virus is far smaller, maybe even in the neighborhood of current regular flu.
	But that doesn't mean it's safer than the regular flu.
	Because there are two elements that make the flu dangerous.
	One is how many people die if they have it.
	And the other is how viral is it?
	How many people are going to get it?
	How quickly does it spread?
	And if it's true that more people have it than we know, that would suggest that the death rate is lower.
	That's good news.
	Wait a minute. No, that's bad news.
	Because that's just one variable.
	That one variable, the statistic of how likely you will die if you get it, is just one variable.
	If ten times more people get it, even if it's only the same amount of risk, once you get it, it's ten times worse.
	And I think Tucker needs to make that clarification in the sense that that would be the more complete picture.
	It feels like saying that...
	Let's say that this doctor's right, and we study it, and we find out that the number of people who die from this virus, pretty much similar to every other virus anybody ever got.
	You know, it's like.001%.
	I forget what the percentage is.
	But let's say it's the same, but it's 10 times more viral, or 6 times more viral, whatever it is.
	We don't know how viral it is.
	But let's not say that if it's more viral and more people have it without symptoms, that therefore it's not as deadly.
	Am I right about that?
	That you have to know both?
	All right, we'll get to Candace.
	I know you want to talk about Candace Owens.
	Alright, I think that if we were to reopen the economy now, now being in the next few weeks under some smart plan, would people look back at this and say it was a mistake?
	I know they will, right?
	But let me suggest this.
	I think you also have to look at the closing of the economy as an insurance cost.
	It's a gigantic insurance cost against some larger, I guess, number of deaths or whatever.
	And I don't know that it was the wrong decision.
	I don't know that it's the wrong decision.
	Somebody is clarifying that the expert on Tucker's show last night was a Stanford PhD doctor slash scientist.
	So very qualified. Let's say he's right.
	It's still potentially dangerous.
	So how many people...
	What percentage of people get the regular flu?
	In the comments...
	Yeah, somebody's helping me out with the percentage.
	For the regular flu, it's 0.1%.
	Not 1%.
	It's 0.1%.
	I believe that's right.
	So how many people get the regular flu in a regular year?
	If you don't know that...
	Then maybe you don't know enough to have an intelligent opinion on whether we should go back to work.
	Wouldn't you say? Now you could still decide if you knew that, that you want to go back to work.
	But if you don't have that basic information, you're a little bit blind about the basic data.
	So let me give it to you.
	In a typical year, maybe...
	Well, I'll give you the 2009 year.
	18% of the country got the swine flu.
	18%. Most of them didn't have any bad symptoms.
	That's why that one wasn't as bad as others could be.
	But do we think that if we did not mitigate the coronavirus, do the experts say that the virality we're seeing from it would only reach 18% of the country?
	Is anybody saying that?
	So is anybody saying that this one seems to be no more viral than Than this worst case one, because 18% is actually worst case.
	I think the actual percent is about 10%.
	Yeah. So the flu infects, and this comes from WebMD, I think, the regular flu gets 5 to 20% of the U.S. population every year.
	5 to 20%.
	And I saw another source that just took the middle ground and says about 10% of the public gets it.
	What percentage of the public are the experts predicting we'll get the coronavirus?
	Well, I've heard 60%, right?
	Now, we don't know if that's true yet, but if it's true that a regular flu with a regular death rate gets, let's just pick 10% for easy math, gets 10% of the public, and then 0.1% of them die.
	That's one number. But what happens if the percentage of the country that gets it is 60%?
	That's six times as many people getting it.
	So even if the same percentage of die, it's still six times more deaths.
	How many people die per year from the regular flu?
	Well, I saw two numbers and they're pretty different.
	One said 36,000 deaths per year is normal.
	Another one said that 8,000 to 20,000 deaths is normal, which is a lot lower than 36,000.
	These both were credible sources, so I don't know the difference.
	I'm guessing that the difference is how they calculated last year, or 2018's flu, because that was really, really big.
	So the flu in 2017-2018 killed 80,000 people, Compared to something in the low, you know, 10 or 20,000 normal.
	And I think that the difference between these averages, one averaged 36,000 per year, another one 8 to 20, might be whether they counted that as a normal year or something.
	So maybe they tossed out the outlier year before they calculated the average.
	Anyway, the point is, let's take a midpoint.
	Let's say 20,000. Let's say the average flu kills 20,000 people.
	If it's six times worse, that would be 120,000 people.
	Without mitigation. So, did the model say that...
	Well, the model said that without mitigation it would be more like a million.
	So that still would be a problem with the models.
	But would you be concerned if the experts confirmed that 120,000 people would die if we all go back to work and don't mitigate so much?
	Would you be okay with that, going back to work, if 120,000 people were going to die?
	My reading of the public is yes.
	My reading of the room is yeah.
	If it were only 120,000 people, if it were six times worse than a regular flu, I think the public would go back to work.
	Right? I'm not even sure anybody would disagree with that statement.
	But I would just like to fix the math and say that you've got to figure the virality as well as the percentage that die from it.
	All right. Let's see.
	Did you know that a lot of the tests for the coronavirus are faulty?
	I'm talking about the antibody test, not the test to see if you have the virus, but the test to see if you once had the virus and have recovered.
	So the antibodies are after you've recovered.
	Well, also while you have it, but they're testing after you've recovered.
	And so the FDA commissioner said basically that some huge percentage of those test kits for antibodies don't work.
	And one of the ways they don't work is they don't distinguish between the common cold and the coronavirus, the bad one, because they're all in that family.
	Now, You've seen numbers that say that the people who have the antibodies is probably much bigger than we know, meaning that more people were infected.
	How do we know how many people have antibodies if the tests don't work?
	Or at least they're not accurate and we don't know how inaccurate they are.
	So I would say that we're completely blind at the moment to how many people have had it and recovered and have the antibodies.
	We just, apparently the tests, the tests are just guessing at this point.
	Um, let's see.
	Uh, Bill Gates has said that to halting the funding to the world health organization, which is what Trump has suggested until they do, uh, do some kind of a study about what happened here.
	Um, So Bill Gates says that's as dangerous as it would sound.
	But I'm not going to disagree with Bill Gates.
	Because it does sound dangerous, right?
	So Bill Gates says that's as dangerous as it sounds.
	And I think, well, he's right.
	Because the World Health Organization does a lot of things that if they're doing them right are quite valuable, or so people say.
	So I don't think he's wrong that it's dangerous.
	But here's the part where I think a little nuance is important.
	Do you think Trump wants to get rid of the World Health Organization?
	Because I don't see anything like that.
	Do you? Do you think Trump wants the World Health Organization to disappear?
	Do you think he wants somebody else to fund it and then keep operating the way they are?
	No, he doesn't want any of those things.
	It should be fairly obvious that what Trump wants is a change of leadership and more accountability and some assurance that they're not being influenced by China for the wrong reasons.
	Now, you don't have to get rid of the World Health Organization to do that.
	It's pretty obvious who the leaders are.
	Find out what the real story is and get rid of them.
	So I don't think that you should see Trump's withholding of funds as anything but pressure to have some accountability and management.
	That's different than getting rid of the World Health Organization.
	So I wouldn't conflate those.
	Let's talk about Candace Owens.
	So Candace, in her inimitable way, knows how to be provocative better than just about anybody who isn't named Trump.
	So let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of Candace Owens.
	Met her once, very warm, very friendly.
	I love the whole thing she's doing.
	So generally I'm on the same page with her.
	But we've got this interesting situation, and as I've already said, I just gave you my opinion that we should probably go back to work pretty soon.
	So Candace is on the, I would say, on the slightly more extreme side of that view, meaning that she thinks the virus is overblown maybe and we should get back to work sooner.
	I think that's her view.
	I don't want to mischaracterize it.
	But I think she believes the virus is overblown and maybe the shutdown was too much.
	So she has this anecdote which she tweeted about today, and I will read it.
	So Candace tweeted, Wow, just had a police officer called over to me and my husband at Whole Foods because we were not wearing masks.
	We came to this Whole Foods every day, in capitals, every day.
	Apparently beginning yesterday is now illegal to come in without a mask.
	Total deaths in D.C. from COVID, 69.
	So you might imagine that I think it was like one of the top trending hashtags, the everyday thing.
	And here's my take on it.
	Well, so Candace's reason is that there have been 69 deaths in D.C. Now, she accurately points out The 69 deaths in this big old city is not a big amount.
	But I tweeted back, maybe Whole Foods believes pandemics can get worse because of the viral part.
	But I'm only guessing.
	It's driving me nuts to watch people who largely agree with me on a lot of stuff to act like the number of people who have died so far Is the important metric.
	If you're looking at the number of people who died so far, I don't think you should be in the conversation.
	Now, I get that if you were comparing it to the model, it would be accurate to say, oh, the model seems off.
	But isn't the whole point to prevent the 69 people who died from turning into 69,000 people who died?
	Isn't that... That's sort of the point, is it?
	Alright, so, and then a lot of people were honored for about the going to Whole Foods every day and without a mask.
	And while I totally get the freedom element of it, so I understand.
	If Candace wants to go to Whole Foods during a pandemic and not wear a mask, A free country suggests she should be allowed to do that.
	And if the coronavirus was as bad as the first impression, then I would say, Candace, put a mask on.
	Get with the program. But I would say, as we've watched the estimates of deaths come down, etc., and if you assume it's going to be in a few hundred thousand, And the country is ready for that under this condition?
	I don't know. I think Candace is leaning in the correct direction of opening things up.
	But I just don't like any reference to how many people have died in the past as a basis for your decision of what to do in the future.
	It doesn't make sense. All right.
	I asked online for people to give me...
	To give me an opinion of what metric they would see that would convince them the experts were correct, that this is so bad that we need to close the economy.
	So what would you have to see to convince you?
	Now, Adam Townsend came up with a number of 200,000.
	And he had some qualifiers on there, so you'd have to read his qualifiers to really understand the context.
	But that's a fair number.
	I wouldn't argue that.
	If somebody says, yeah, my number is, if this is all said and done and 200,000 people die, I'm going to rethink what I said and think, yeah, maybe we should have been more careful.
	But if fewer than 200,000 die, I'm going to stay with my opinion that this was overblown and closing the economy was worse than letting those 200,000 people die.
	So, That's a fair opinion.
	But I heard another opinion that was so clever that I thought I would mention it.
	So instead of counting the number of people who died, because that gets into the problem of whether they're coded correctly.
	You know, did they really die from this?
	And, you know, what about all the other factors?
	And what about the people who didn't die in car accidents and the net and all that?
	And... Somebody suggested that the way to measure this is in changes in average life expectancy.
	And I thought, that might actually be pretty good.
	Suppose you just manage life expectancy.
	Right? Because I think what that does, I haven't fully thought this through, but I think what it does is it somewhat unintentionally, or maybe intentionally, puts a lower weight On people who are 80 years old and dying, right? Because their life expectancy has already sort of ran out.
	But if somebody young dies, that changes the average of the life expectancy more.
	And I thought, that is a really clever thing to measure so that later we could decide, did we do a good thing or a bad thing?
	Am I right? It's not the only thing you would measure.
	But wouldn't you like to know, a year from now, did the average life expectancy in the United States go up or down this year?
	I'd kind of like to know that.
	It's a very clever way to look at it, and I don't know why I never thought of it.
	But it does seem like you also want to count the number of people.
	You also want to look at your percentages.
	But I think average life expectancy is totally worth tracking.
	That was a good idea. So AOC is, according to Tara Reade, the woman who accused Joe Biden of Me Too-ing her back in the 90s, she tweeted that Alexandria AOC is literally the first member of Congress to address publicly what happened to her when she worked for Biden,
	and she thanked her. And so I looked, and sure enough, AOC, love her or hate her, I know you get worked up whenever I mention her name.
	Love her or hate her, she's the only Democrat who decided to be consistent.
	Kind of tells me she's going to run for national office, doesn't it?
	You can already see the hints of it, where AOC is taking a principled, consistent stand that women need to be believed.
	Now, You could say that's right or wrong.
	You could make a good argument.
	Well, you can't really make an argument that women shouldn't be believed.
	But who else was consistent?
	Right? Is it not fair to at least give her credit for being consistent?
	I think that's worth something in public.
	She's the only one who was brave enough to just come out and say, you know, Biden's got a problem there.
	We should listen to her. I give her credit.
	All right. While I agree we should probably get back to work in some smart but quick way, and while I've told you I'm in a high-risk group because I'm over 60, I've got asthma, I would like this additional option as a consideration to me And people in my situation.
	So I'll just ask for this, and I don't expect to get it.
	I think it's fair for me to ask for this.
	So while I would like the 20-somethings and the 30-somethings who don't have a big risk to go back to work, and they understand that that puts people like me at greater risk because there'd be greater spreading, there's one thing I'd ask.
	So in order for me to be okay, and I'm going to be full-throated okay with the younger people who have low risk going back to work, even though it puts me at higher risk, I'm not even going to qualify it.
	I'm okay with it.
	But I just ask one thing in return.
	I'd like to have doctor-assisted suicide as an option.
	Because I don't want to experience the last two days of drowning in my own lung juice.
	That's all I want. Now, if it's not the last two days, you know, where it's pretty clear you're on a ventilator and you're not going to make it, whatever.
	If it's not that, I'm not going to kill myself or have assisted suicide.
	Now, California allows you to have assisted suicide under the right conditions.
	And, you know, if it's definitely terminal and you've got doctors signing off and stuff...
	And that's all great. I was actually active in that movement to get that to become the law in California.
	Many of you don't know that, but that was one of the things I used my persuasion for publicly.
	But it's not set up to be efficient.
	So in other words, I can't just be in the hospital and say, look, before you put me on the ventilator, here's the deal.
	If it looks like I've got less than 48 hours and I'm in a coma...
	Can you just kill me? I suppose maybe if you're unconscious and your lungs stop, you don't notice.
	Maybe I don't need assisted suicide if I could just be unconscious when I die.
	I guess I need an expert to tell me that.
	But that's all I ask. All I ask in return is that it not be painful.
	That's all. If I gotta go, I gotta go.
	If it's time, it's time. I'll do what I need to do.
	I'll take that hit for the country.
	I just don't want it to hurt. That's all I ask in return.
	Have you noticed today that there's a spate?
	An absolute spate, I tell you.
	Have I ever used that word before, a spate?
	Well, there's a spate of stories about maybe hydroxychloroquine and its little brother chloroquine.
	Maybe it's dangerous, and maybe it doesn't work.
	Have you noticed that there's a whole bunch of anecdotal, and there's this little study, but it's not too rigorous?
	Have you noticed that? It was just the last 48 hours?
	A whole bunch of different stories?
	Well, this hydroxychloroquine doesn't seem to be working.
	It looks like it killed people. It took people off and it killed.
	Have you noticed that? Do you believe it's real?
	Do you believe it's just a genuine coincidence that there are a bunch of stories that used to be 100% positive and that in the last 48 hours the stories have really turned to more negative?
	Now you might say to yourself, well that's because they've done more studies and now we're smarter.
	But I did see online where somebody was criticizing a couple of the studies that came out with some negative results.
	And pointed out really obvious flaws.
	They weren't scientific studies at all.
	So, here's my caution to you.
	You should expect the very bad people who are trying to disinform on the question of hydroxychloroquine.
	Now, some of it might be that it's being confused with chloroquine, which does have, I think, more side effects and less effectiveness.
	So, make sure that you're looking at the hydroxy version, not the Chloroquine.
	That's the first thing. They try to conflate them to make them sound like they're both bad.
	Secondly, look at the amount they're giving.
	And they're giving it to people in the last throes of life.
	So that's a different calculation than giving it to somebody early.
	And they may not know the dose.
	They might just give too much.
	So that's a possibility.
	So I would suspect that foreign disinformation Could be part of this.
	You could have Chinese bots and Chinese studies and stuff to give you some doubt about this.
	You could imagine that a pharmaceutical company that thinks it might have its own right answer, that's a different drug that they could make billions of dollars on, they might have a troll or two on the internet, if you know what I mean.
	So I don't know if you could trust the negative stories coming out about hydroxychloroquine.
	But, let me say as clearly as possible, you also cannot trust the positive stories, the ones that say it worked, because that's not quite proven.
	So, I would say at this point, it's a big question mark.
	Alright. When there's more people taking it, Yeah, and the thing that I'm seeing that is the big red flag for this being misinformation is that we're getting reports that people are having heart failure on the drug.
	Now, at least these drugs have been around a long time.
	Do you think that only people who have coronavirus are having heart problems?
	Because... Somebody in the comments is saying if you have a heart condition then you need to take remdesivir.
	And I would think that everyone who's elderly and on a ventilator or near it probably has a heart condition.
	But it's still important if it's killing them.
	More successful if you take it earlier.
	We don't know that.
	That's the speculation that has not been But certainly, anecdotally, that seems to be the case.
	You searched so that you could have a talking point to persuade us.
	Only heard it from you.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	That's why we reserve opinions.
	Well, you know, the doctors who said...
	We know this drug doesn't have many side effects, at least if you're not, you know, in the last two days of your life it doesn't have side effects.
	So it's just a good risk-reward to give it a try based on the anecdotal evidence.
	So there's nothing wrong with that.
	What's taking you so long to know exactly?
	Exactly. Why is this taking so long?
	Because it seems to me there are a number of tests, or a number of, yeah, trials.
	I feel like there are a number of trials that have gone longer than 10 days.
	And don't you know in 10 days?
	I mean, you'd know more in 15 days.
	But don't you know in 10 days?
	I don't know. Do I periscope on my phone or computer?
	Right now I'm periscoping on an iPad.
	And I'm going to start doing some special content on my phone, mostly when I'm moving around.
	So I'll be producing some extra content on my phone.
	You said you would insist on it if you were infected.
	No, my position hasn't changed.
	Because I'm not 80, I don't have a heart problem, and I don't know that it works, but the risk-reward is worth a shot.
	Please look up Newt Witkowski.
	I probably won't do that, but you can send me a link.
	The Slaughter Meter.
	Where's the Slaughter Meter?
	Have you seen Joe Biden?
	How could President Trump lose to Joe Biden unless something new happens between now and Election Day?
	How could Joe Biden possibly win the election?
	I suppose if he really liked whoever he picks for vice president, but I wouldn't count on that.
	How many are taking it and die without a doctor's approval?
	I do wonder about that.
	I kept trying to make some kind of a comedy routine about WHO, the World Health Organization, and President Xi.
	I know you could make an Abbott and Costello out of that.
	Hanks was cured by hydroxy, and now they're trashing it.
	We don't know that. First of all, I think they use chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine, but fact-check that.
	Secondly, we don't know that Rita Wilson's...
	We don't know that all of her symptoms were the side effects.
	It could have been the symptoms from the coronavirus itself.
	Boris Johnson apparently did not take chloroquine.
	So I don't know if that's public.
	Okay, I heard that privately.
	So maybe I'm breaking news.
	I think I'm breaking news.
	But I heard from somebody...
	Who has some connection to Boris Johnson, that he did not take the hydroxychloroquine because it was not nationally recommended and he didn't want to be the one who went against the national recommendations.
	Now, I don't have a second source for that, but I'm telling you that I heard it privately that Boris Johnson did not take those drugs.
	So I would say that needs a fact check.
	But I earned it from a reliable source.
	Alright. That's all I got for now.
	I will talk to you tonight.

▲