Episode 933 Scott Adams: Let's Have a Laugh About the National IQ Test That Half of the Public is Failing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
Nobody said anyone should drink or inject bleach or isopropyl
Intubation and UV light therapy patented process
Bank of China story by people who don't understand banking
An avalanche of good news about coronavirus soon
Georgia...the fate of our republic rests on your shoulders
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Yes, it's on the run. We got some tough times ahead, but I think we're starting to turn the corner.
A little bit.
Just a little bit.
If you would like to fully enjoy this presentation of Coffee with Scott Adams, I recommend participating in the simultaneous sip.
Now I know some of you just listen to it and say to yourself, I don't have to actually sip at the same time.
But I think if you talk to the people who do, they will tell you, Quite unanimously.
It's a life-changing experience.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything, including the pandemic, better.
It's better than drinking bleach and isopropyl alcohol.
Yeah, it's better than that.
Go! Alright, so let's just get right to it.
So the big fun today is that there's a national IQ test being administered, and it is just about the funniest thing I've ever seen in my life.
Because there are headlines from MSNBC, Vanity Fair, basically all the stupid places.
So all the really dumb outlets are reporting that they believe that the President of the United States stood in front of the country and asked Dr.
Birx if she thought it would be a good idea to inject isopropyl alcohol and bleach into your veins.
That's what they're reporting that they think they witnessed.
Except nothing like that happened.
Now it is true that the President was unclear, but if you understand the context, what he meant, made perfect sense.
And it goes like this.
So there have been some recent reports about this type of light, a far UV light, special kind of UV light.
That could kill virus.
We know that it's a real thing on the outside world because they use this light to clean surfaces and hospitals, etc.
But more recently, somebody had suggested, and there's some videos that I've tweeted around.
One of them is pinned to my profile right now.
Some have suggested that you could put the light in a ventilator-type tube, and so when you're using the ventilator, You could be simultaneously dosing the patient from the inside with UV light.
Now, it is suggested that this has some promise worth looking into, and the president said, hey, this is something that has some potential.
That's what actually happened.
How dumb would you have to be To hear him speaking, and admittedly he was unclear because he changed topics and then he changed back.
Doesn't matter the exact words.
Because no matter what he actually said, how dumb would you have to be to interpret it as he was asking in public, should you inject bleach and isopropyl alcohol into your veins?
The first tip-off should have been that nobody would say that.
Literally nobody would say that.
So this is how the IQ test works.
If you didn't immediately say to yourself, huh, I wonder if he misspoke.
Maybe I should get a clarification of what he meant.
If that wasn't your first reaction to hearing that, You have failed the IQ test.
Now, of course, many of you are going to say, no, Scott, they're not really dumb.
They're just pretending like they heard it that way so that they can pretend to be attacking the president based on something that didn't happen.
Well, maybe.
But watch the responses to people when I explain to them what they got wrong.
And these are people who went in public And said in public that they believed the president was suggesting mainlining with bleach.
So having the actual story being explained to them, that what he asked was actually a perfectly good question, how do they react?
Well, it's cognitive dissonance.
And so you can watch, just for entertainment, if you want to see the best examples of cognitive dissonance, you rarely get a setup that's so ideal, and it's also public.
And the setup is this.
A number of smart, educated people, lawyers, doctors, etc., have gone in public and And they put their reputation on the line, because if you tweet something, your profile's attached to it, your real name.
It's your real name.
And people are saying in public that they believe that that happened, that the president suggested mainlining isopropyl alcohol and bleach.
Now, once it's explained to you that he was talking about the intubation and UV light, which is actually a thing, there's a patent for it, there's a company that's promoting it, it's a real thing, it may not work, but that's why he was asking.
Once it's explained to you, how do you react?
How many of the people who thought he said one thing, and then they're introduced to the fact, oh, he was talking about this UV light, I get it, makes sense now.
How many of those people, once corrected, said to me in public, oh, I guess I leapt to an assumption.
I made a bad assumption. I should have looked into it.
None. Nobody will do that.
Now, if their brains were operating without bias and operating correctly, they would simply take the new information and say, oh, yeah, that new information, that makes perfect sense.
Okay, yeah, now with that added context, I see it.
So I was in a conversation with an attorney in which I trapped him just for fun.
I introduced the new information.
Remember, he's an attorney.
Attorneys are really good at incorporating new information.
Sort of what they do.
If they can't do it, who can?
And so he gets cornered and he retreats to this.
The definition of the word injection.
So he says, no, Scott.
Clearly he meant injecting the liquids, the bleach and the isopropyl, because you don't inject light, you inject chemicals.
Which would probably be a big surprise to the plastic injection molding industry.
Who thinks they're using a device to inject plastic because injection is a word that can be used generically or it could be used medically?
Are we surprised that someone who's not a doctor would use an imprecise medical term which was still perfectly clear?
Because ventilation and intubation is sticking something into a body I would call it injecting.
You're injecting something into the body, and whether it was in the form of a needle or in the form of a ventilated tube with lights on it, in both cases you're using a tool, the ventilator with the light or the needle, to introduce an active ingredient, either a vaccination or light.
So, complaining about the word injecting Injection is sort of all you have left once you see that it's obvious that you just misinterpreted it.
You're like, well, I don't think I misinterpreted it.
Nope. I think the president really was.
He was really.
He was really suggesting we put bleach into our veins.
So I watched a Dr.
Han of the FDA, he was being interviewed by Sanjay Gupta and Anderson Cooper.
And of course, Anderson Cooper asked Dr.
Han about this situation.
Now remember that Anderson Cooper is under the belief that the president suggested something just crazy, literally injecting bleach and isopropyl into your veins.
What does the doctor say?
The doctor says, oh yeah, I'm paraphrasing, but the doctor says basically, yeah, light therapy, you know, light therapy is a thing.
And then Anderson, you have to watch the video.
I think it's up on their site.
Watch Anderson Cooper experience cognitive dissonance.
Because when Han answers the question, it's the first, I think probably the first moment that Anderson realizes that it was always about light.
And you watch Anderson try to basically rewrite the history in his own head until it started making sense.
And again, the way cognitive dissonance works is that the person who experiences it is unable to incorporate the new information.
In other words, he's unable to say, oh, are you saying, Dr.
Hahn, that he was talking about the light therapy when he talked about injection?
Is that what you mean?
And Dr. Hahn would have said something like, yeah, I assume that's what he meant, because that's a thing, and you inject it down the throat.
Obviously, we wouldn't be talking about injecting bleach and isopropyl.
Where would that come from?
That wouldn't even make any sense.
So you see, Anderson's...
And I'll try to do an impression of Anderson Cooper finding out that his entire premise was on the wrong topic.
It should have been light, not bleach and isopropyl.
And Anderson goes, So are you saying it would be a bad idea to inject bleach?
So Anderson Couldn't incorporate the new information, and it almost broke his brain on live TV. You really have to see it.
And I've told you before that you can recognize cognitive dissonance because you can actually watch a brain reboot.
The first time you see it, it'll freak you out.
Because once you can recognize it, you can recognize it every time you see it.
And it looks that same way.
You can see the person just, their face will scrunch up, And you'll see they're trying to rethink and recast their history so that they're not crazy.
And then they come up with something that doesn't make any sense at all.
So Dr.
Hahn said, yeah, it's basically talking about light therapy.
And then Anderson goes through his rebooting and is like, so would you say it's bad to inject bleach?
What? What? He couldn't even stay on the topic.
He wasn't able to even process it.
So I pinned to my profile the link to the video that shows that it's a real product.
It's patented.
They're trying to sell it.
It's not tested or it's not approved, but it's a real thing.
It's based on fairly standard, well-known medical facts.
All right. All the news is funny today.
So there's photos have been released by the Miami Beach Police of the luxury hotel in which Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum had been found with two other men.
So here's the way the story is written.
If this isn't funny, I don't know what is.
So this is a serious news report.
Or is it? I'll just read it, and then you can decide if this is a serious sentence or not.
So it starts out saying, the photos released Wednesday...
Show vomit-stained and rumpled bedsheets, a box for a party-light disco ball, spilled white pills on the carpet, and a vial of a drug often used for erectile dysfunction.
But the newly released photos and officer body cam video shed no further light on what Gillum was doing or why he was there last month.
Do you need any further light shed on what Gillum was doing and why he was there?
Because the first part of your own paragraph said that there was vomiting and rumpled bedsheets, a box for a party, disco light, spilled white pills in the carpet, a vile of drug often used for erectile dysfunction where he was found with two gay men.
Now... Maybe you could say, you know, without the body cam of the police officers, how are we going to know what really happened?
Because I don't think we have enough data.
I feel as though we'd really have to do some research to find out what was happening in that room.
Were they doing homework together?
Because maybe. Were they maybe giving each other haircuts?
I mean, you can't rule anything out.
There was nothing on the body cam.
So how do you know they weren't just giving each other haircuts?
The police come in.
You can't rule that out because there's no body cam.
Right? Right?
Alright. The other big fake news is based on real news, but of course the importance put on it is the fake part.
Trump owes the Bank of China millions of dollars for helping him acquire one of the most valuable properties.
And the loan comes due in the middle of the next presidential term.
Oh no, they got him.
Finally, they found out, what does China have over the president?
Because they must have some blackmail, because otherwise why would he try to screw them on trade?
Wait a minute, that doesn't work.
Wait, if you're blackmailing somebody, do you blackmail somebody to destroy your country?
Wait, now I'm confused.
China's blackmailing Trump to try to get him to renegotiate a trade deal that's worse for China?
Was that what he was doing?
Was it their plan to use the Bank of China to To blackmail Trump into not kicking Huawei out of our networks and probably out of the networks of anybody we connect to?
Huh. I don't know how blackmail works because I think it's supposed to be different than that.
Like opposite? Like opposite.
So that's the first problem, is that there's a paucity, I say a paucity, An absolute paucity of evidence that the president is going easy on China, except that he says nice things about President Xi.
Why would he do that?
Why would the diplomat in chief act diplomatic in public with somebody who wants to negotiate important trade deals?
Why would a diplomat act diplomatic?
I don't know. The only reason I can think of for a diplomat The president, in this case, to act diplomatic would be if he's being blackmailed.
Duh! Obviously, must be being blackmailed into being respectful to the leader of another country.
Why else would you do it?
So I tweeted that, the story about the Bank of China...
This is only a story for people who don't understand how banks work.
So first of all, there's some complication about who got the loan and what percentage Trump owns and all that.
So it's complicated. It's not Trump got a loan.
There's a big business deal with lots of people involved.
Trump probably doesn't have any control over it at this point.
I think he has a minority interest in that.
Somebody else has a managing control.
But here's what people don't know about banking.
If you borrow $100,000 from your bank, your bank owns you.
Your bank owns you.
I'm assuming if you're not already rich, your bank owns you.
Because you've got to pay that back.
And if you don't pay that back, your bank will ruin your credit and your life is going to take a bad turn.
Right? So that's if you borrow $100,000 from your bank.
What happens if you borrow, say, a few hundred million?
If you borrow a few hundred million dollars from your bank, you own the bank.
I mean, not actually, but here's the thing.
Do you think that the Bank of China could ruin a borrower Unless it was obvious that they were doing what banks do.
Obviously a bank can foreclose on a loan if somebody doesn't pay the loan.
But do you think that the Bank of China could do something nefarious to somebody who's a legitimate business person who did hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business with their bank?
Do you think they can screw that person right in front of the world?
If you think so, you don't know what a bank is.
The most basic thing a bank has to be is trustworthy.
If you take the trustworthy part out of the bank, what is it?
It's a place you lost your money.
Because if you give your money to somebody that you don't trust, well, that's like losing your money.
You might as well just flush it down the toilet.
The whole bank idea is that they are uniquely trustworthy.
That's their whole business model.
If they screw somebody who's a multi-hundred-million-dollar borrower right in front of the whole world because, what, he did something that China doesn't like?
That's the end of the Bank of China.
We're not looking at the Bank of China blackmailing Trump.
You're looking at the Bank of China being on the edge of going out of business.
Because if they mess with Trump, everybody's going to know it.
And banks are fairly generic products, meaning that if you don't get a loan from one person, you can get it from another bank.
No bank can afford...
To screw a customer that big in front of the world, especially one that tells the world everything that happens, right?
So it's possible China could use some kind of clever manipulation to try to put pressure on the president, and then you know what he'd do?
Well, there are two possibilities.
First of all, he doesn't have control of the loan, so it wouldn't work anyway.
But Let's say there are two possibilities.
One is that the Trump organization is still good for the money.
In other words, they still have the capability of paying back the loan, which I sort of doubt in the age of coronavirus.
I doubt they do. But there are two possibilities.
They either can pay the loan back or they can't.
If the answer is that they can pay the loan back, does it matter what the Bank of China wants to do or call the loan?
No. Because he'll just take it to another bank.
If he's capable of having a loan at that size and servicing it, then he's capable of taking it anywhere else.
And anybody else will say, oh yeah, we'd love that business.
Looks like you can pay it back.
That's the business we're in.
Making loans and getting paid back.
Now let's take the other possibility.
Let's take the possibility you can't pay it back.
Well, who wins in that case?
The bank doesn't win.
The Bank of China isn't going to be happy if they don't get paid back.
So, you know, there are levels upon levels upon levels of this.
You'd really have to understand banking to know what the real ins and outs of it are.
And the people writing about this don't.
So they're just going to say, looks like China can blackmail the president.
So there's that.
All right. I told you, I think it was yesterday, that I'm predicting that sometime in the next two weeks, there's going to be big news.
And I mean big news in the sense that there'll be some big good news.
It could be good news on the topic we know is out there brewing.
So that might be some therapeutic works or it might be a new type of test kit or something.
But I think in the next two weeks you're going to see, let's say, a medical field breakthrough that's relevant to coronavirus.
The reason I say that...
I've just lived long enough that there are some patterns that you see over and over.
And given the intense amount of innovative, creative effort that's gone into battling the coronavirus, you would expect that there would be a period of maybe six weeks to two months For the smartest, most effective people to ramp up whatever it is they're trying to ramp up.
So I think you're going to find out that people have been working on stuff for a while and they're going to start introducing it and rolling it out.
And it could very easily have nothing to do with the obvious stuff.
For example, imagine if next week we found that And I'm not predicting this.
I'm just giving you examples of how it could go.
Imagine next week we found that everybody in the country was going to get an oxygen sensor, the kind you put your finger in.
I've got one of those. And you would just check your oxygen every day, and as soon as it dipped below whatever number they tell you, maybe dips below 95, maybe dips below something lower, that you would immediately talk to your doctor or report it.
And if you did, you would probably catch symptoms early-ish, not in the earliest moments, because it takes a while to get to your lungs.
But if you got it at least the moment it affects your lungs, what would that do to survival?
What would that do To being able to take that person off the field and quarantine them.
Because remember, the person who's just getting a little bit of breathing problem, there's something unique about the coronavirus in which you don't notice the breathing problem.
Apparently your body compensates by breathing more quickly to get the same amount of air but with more breaths, and you don't notice it necessarily.
We could have some little technological thing that's really just a manufacturing problem.
We also will have better tests.
I already know of things in the pipeline that I can't talk about.
But there should be, in the next few weeks, some breakthroughs in testing that would allow us to ramp up more quickly.
So you might see that as well.
And I think that the news is going to start...
Becoming a little more positive.
Meaning that the news reports on whatever is an exception.
So if it's all bad news and people are dying, the news will be about people dying.
But because we get 50 states with 50 different back-to-work plans, this is sort of the perfect situation.
Because the news is going to look for anything that's new.
And say, okay, what's new and different today?
And there'll always be a state...
That did something new to get back to work.
It's like, oh, state of Tennessee did this or that.
Let's report on that. So you should see an avalanche of good news.
Good news in terms of going back to work, etc.
So look for avalanche of good news.
That's coming. And I don't know if that will affect the stock market, but it should.
Somebody says, oh my god, don't take hydroxychloroquine.
Are you dumb? Are you talking to me?
Are you talking to me?
So my estimates are still at hydroxychloroquine.
60% chance it doesn't help.
40% chance it does, because we don't know.
But that's just my estimate.
Remdesivir looks lower at this point.
Maybe that's more like a 10 or 20% chance that it works.
Some early indication that it didn't work at all.
But we'll see. You can't really trust anything at this point.
Speaking of not trusting anything, how much jabbering have you seen about how Sweden is doing it differently and Sweden is having a good result?
How much are you hearing that?
Sweden, Sweden, Sweden, compared to Sweden.
Well, I saw a doctor today who was looking at Sweden and said, Sweden's not doing better than anybody else.
Apparently Sweden's not doing well at all.
So Sweden is doing worse than other countries who are sort of similar, Scandinavian countries.
So, and also Sweden apparently got a late start, meaning that their infections hit them later.
So what you should see with Sweden is that they're approaching their peak where the countries, the lockdowns, are near or have had their peaks and will start to trail off unless they open up and don't do a good job of opening up.
Now, What about the news we heard yesterday that almost nobody gets this when they're outdoors?
How hard would it be to imagine that given, at least in the United States, it's summer, given that it's summer, how hard would it be to imagine that just everybody who can move stuff outdoors just does it?
You just open up all your windows, keep your windows open all day and all night?
It probably could take 70% of the problem away.
So, there's that.
Are people still saying it's just the flu?
I don't know. How many deaths did we get up to?
Are we up to 50,000 deaths?
Alright. So, no matter whether you thought this was just like the flu or not, we can all agree that 50,000 deaths in the context of closing down the entire economy is a lot.
So, how many deaths would you get if we opened up the economy?
Well, if we've got 50,000 now, it would be more, right?
Because the rate of infection, all the experts say, will probably start inching up, so the number of people per day will start going up again.
If it's already a 50, what would it be by the end of the year, unless we come up with some new treatments?
Well, I think it's going to cross 100 pretty easily.
I'm feeling like the models are not going to look that far off.
I'm also still trying to find net numbers because my prediction is that it would be 5,000 net deaths because you have to subtract the people who are living that would have died in car crashes and stuff if the economy had been open.
So I think we're around there.
I don't think my prediction will be accurate.
I think it will be the most accurate.
Meaning I'll be closer than anybody else.
It just won't be accurate.
Trump called it the flu.
Yeah. Gosh, what are the odds that a non-medical professional would use the wrong medical term?
That's quite surprising.
Still 2,000 deaths per day or more.
Yeah. What about comorbidity?
You know, the comorbidity story is more complicated than we think because everybody has a comorbidity, it seems like.
In the United States, I feel like everybody's got something.
I was just reading an article by Van Jones in which he was saying, I think he's 50, and he was saying that he has high blood pressure and he's pre-diabetic or something, so he thought he might be one of the One of the people who would have the greatest risk.
And he makes the point that in the black community especially, there's so many other problems that if they get one more thing, it pushes them over the top so they're having a worse time with it.
And definitely we should be looking at how to fix that.
I agree. You added net the next day.
Alright. We will...
We're deleting all the people who are nitpicking my net.
And here's why. So you're blocked forever.
And all the rest of you who do that will be blocked forever.
Here's why. I did add net after my original prediction.
But net is the only smart way to look at it.
So adding that we should look at it in a smart way is not really much of a difference.
And I also made that clarification well long enough ago that it still counts as my prediction.
All right.
Because I made that well long ago.
There was certainly no point at which I thought that 5,000 gross would be the total death count.
So if you thought that, maybe I wasn't clear.
So you can blame me for being unclear.
But there's no situation in which somebody with a degree in economics would look at the gross when that's worthless because we made these changes for the whole point of reducing the net.
It's the net that matters.
You can look at the gross also for other reasons, but if you're looking at how many people died based on the strategy that we're using, it's gonna be death.
Alright. You literally did, though.
The literally people. You literally did, though.
Block. So all the people who have false memories Of my prediction will get blocked mercilessly.
Blocked. I could do this all day.
I have to admit, I've started to get sort of a little dopamine hit from blocking people.
It kind of feels good every time I do it.
And there's some kind of blocks that feel better than others, but the ones I'm liking the most are the ones who have a false memory, and then they're accusing me of doing something bad because they have a false memory.
But long-time viewers get blocked?
Yes, of course they do.
Yep, it's bad behavior.
Shouldn't you have been clear for an accurate prediction?
them.
Yes, I should.
As I block you? Yes, absolutely.
You're right. Those of you who are saying that being clear is better than being unclear, well, guess what?
It's weird, but I agree with you.
I actually agree that it's better to be clear.
Anybody else want to get weeded out?
You know, the great thing about this fake news about Trump saying you wanted to inject bleach into people's veins, the great thing about that is it surfaces all the trolls, so you can block them as you go.
Just make sure the blocking doesn't result in echo chamber effect.
Well, it does result in echo chamber effect on my own periscope, but because I expose myself to the news on both sides, no matter how much it hurts, I don't worry about that too much.
I have not found a good site for statistics to determine net deaths.
I've actually looked a few times, but I haven't really worked at it too hard.
Because I was also trying to find out if I could determine the net suicide deaths.
It's a little hard to determine because they go up this time of year anyway.
I guess there are more suicides in spring and summer.
So it should be going up from the baseline if there had been no coronavirus.
Do you still think things will look darkest in June?
It will look darkest for the unemployed, yes.
But it will look, June will look optimistic for people who can afford to survive.
Because things are definitely looking up.
but if it's June and you don't have a paycheck for three months, the government's puny little check is not going to make you feel that things are going well.
All right.
Just looking at your comics because I don't have anything else to say.
Don't block me, bro.
You're safe. Alright.
Oh my god, it's even on Fox Business.
They didn't read the entire...
Are you telling me that Fox News is reporting that Trump wanted to put bleach in people's veins?
I don't think so.
This is one of those cases where you should use the rule that I introduced in my book, Win Bigly.
Win Bigly, no, I introduced it in Loser Think, I think.
The trick is that if the news on just the left or just the right reports something happened, and the other side says it didn't, it didn't happen.
And you can reverse them.
It doesn't matter which side says it happened and which side says it didn't happen.
All you need is one side to say that it literally didn't happen.
And you can be sure it didn't happen.
So already Breitbart, even yesterday, Breitbart, Joel Pollack, had a fact check in which he said, The president was not suggesting putting bleach into your veins, essentially.
I'm paraphrasing.
And so that meets the test.
If you're not getting a universal agreement on the left and right, not an interpretation, but whether a fact even happened, you only need one side to say it didn't happen, and you can be sure it didn't happen.
Assuming they were all looking at the same stuff.
If there was a difference in the facts, like some people had access to different facts, well, then you might say, okay, there's a reason why there's a difference in the news, but we're all looking at exactly the same facts.
So if either side says, we're looking at it, it's not there.
It's not there. It's not there.
All right. Everybody knows they should have three to six months of money saved for bills.
Yeah, that's a great idea if you have enough money, but since probably half of the country has never made enough money to save enough money, that advice falls a little bit flat.
Are you buying any AYTU stock?
I am not.
Yeah, I don't have any financial interest in the far UV, in case you're wondering.
Maddow has a demonstration of injecting bleach.
My God. Let's see.
Give us a good weekend mindset.
Oh, there you go.
That was a good question. You want a good mindset to go into the weekend?
It goes like this.
It's easy to underestimate human capability because we tend to look at the people we know or we look at ourselves and we say to ourselves, well, you know, I couldn't invent a vaccine.
I couldn't invent a test kit.
I couldn't organize this or that.
But there are a lot of capable people in the world.
And It does take a month or two for the best among us to get online and get their plans moving.
But I think in the next few weeks, you're going to see things that will just make your head explode.
It'll be so jaw-droppingly creative, innovative.
We might not know if these new ideas work next week or next couple weeks, but I'm saying in the next two weeks, you're going to see humanity at its best.
In the next two weeks, you will see the human race, the best of us, operating at the best, cleanest, clearest, smartest level.
And it will blow you away.
Now, that doesn't mean we're out of the woods.
I'm just saying that you're going to see something that will inspire you in the next few weeks.
And I'm only predicting it because of the sort of general pattern of timing of things.
You don't expect good news on day one, but because it's an emergency, you don't expect that you're going to have to wait a full year for some good news.
My sense of it is, just about the next two weeks, there are going to be some delightful surprises.
Now, as you know, we've been misinformed about just about everything.
We've been misinformed about Well, just all the data, almost everything.
But I think we will be in better shape within two weeks.
That's what I think. Now, like the rest of you, I am super interested in what's going to happen with the people who are coming off house arrest.
The states that are opening up early, I mean, we're all going to watch that really carefully to find out what they do right or wrong.
Think about the pressure if you live in one of the states that's opening early.
Let's say you're a citizen of Georgia and your state is opening early.
If you, the citizens, screw up and you don't do the basic requirements, you know, wear a mask, wash your hands, social distancing, if you don't do the basics, you people in Georgia...
You could destroy the world.
I don't know if that's...
Is that too strong?
Because if the first states that go back to work, if it doesn't work out, we're going to shut down the economy again and try to figure out what does work.
And it might be too late.
So the people in Georgia, let me say this to you.
Our fates...
Kind of rest on you folks being responsible.
Can the folks of Georgia act responsibly enough to save the Republic?
You know, it's a little bit of hyperbole here, but not a lot.
I mean, I don't think I'm stretching it beyond the realm of things that could happen.
It certainly could happen that the population of Georgia doesn't take it seriously.
Infections go through the roof.
The government says, well, we tried, it didn't work, shut everything down.
The economy just disintegrates because it's just closed for too long.
Civil unrest, you know, the rest.
So the citizens of Georgia carry with them the weight of the republic.
And with them, All of our best intentions.
All of our best wishes.
So the people of Georgia, I say to you, you are not alone.
You are carrying the country on your back.
And if you don't feel that pressure, well, I would like you to feel it.
I would like you to feel the pressure.
You know, if you're thinking of walking out the door without your face mask because you don't want to walk back upstairs and get it because you left it upstairs, I would like to ask you, politely and respectfully, think about walking upstairs.
Think about walking upstairs, because the weight of the Republic is on your shoulders.
And I hope you take it seriously, because I know I would.
If the situation were reversed, Georgia, I would very much feel as though I was protecting you.
By my own actions.
And right now you will be protecting me and those of us watching and all of us in the country.
You will be protecting us with your good intentions and your good actions.
