Episode 1072 Scott Adams: Secret Police HOAX, Coronavirus Mysteries and Intrigue, Boris Johnson's Fatness
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Why continue to violently protest?
China policy is now regime change
Betting market says 39% chance of Kamala
Persuasive HCQ data graph by @gummibear737
Thumbs up Boris Johnson, promoting weight loss
Big variables inhibit understanding COVID19
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
That's me. And this will be, yeah, one of the highlights of your day.
Maybe the best part of your day.
Probably the best part of your day.
Alright, it's the best part of your day.
Come on, you know it is.
And to get it going, we'll do the simultaneous sip, and all it takes is...
A cup or a mug or a glass of tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous hip and it happens now.
Go! Mmm.
I feel my vitamin D increasing.
Along with my IQ and my sex appeal.
You could probably feel the same thing at home.
Speaking of being a new person, I've talked about this before, but I'm just blown away by it.
It's sort of a personal thing, but it has a larger meaning.
So I'm preparing for some sinus surgery, and part of that is I'm on prednisone for the third or fourth time this year to try to clear up the sinuses, and it works.
In fact, my ability to smell just came back like two minutes ago.
So every time I go through one of these cycles, I can smell again for the first time in years, but it doesn't last.
However, here's the finding.
The prednisone probably takes 25 years off of my effective age, meaning that with just this little bit of prednisone, which is being used for completely different purposes, My body doesn't get tired.
I am full of energy and love of life.
I can speak better.
I can exercise longer.
I'm probably 25% stronger.
I mean, it's not even close. I can go to the gym and actually watch muscle development in 48 hours.
It's crazy. It's crazy.
Now, so far I haven't had any anger issues from the prednisone.
Maybe that'll come later. Now, you can't do the prednisone for long periods because it has some negative side effects, but the fact that it can change me by 25 years and it activates in just a day, it makes me wonder how close we are to something that doesn't have side effects.
Is there any way to get there?
Or is it just there's an impossibility that if it's going to make you feel good, It's going to kill you somehow.
Is that always the case?
Because, yeah, it's a steroid, somebody's saying.
And it's not healthy to do it in the long run, but I only do it for short bits.
And, yeah, riding faster on my bike, I can walk for hours and no soreness, no stiffness.
It's just like being, you know, a kid again.
It's amazing. But anyway, just the fact that that's even possible really makes you wonder...
What could happen with senior citizens?
I mean, you could give an 80-year-old this drug, and they could pretty much live like a 60-year-old, I think, if they had their mental faculties.
All right, let's talk about some other things that are not me.
Well, okay, a little bit more about me.
A pollster called me last night, and I couldn't remember if I've ever been called by a political pollster.
So at least now we know that they call.
Now they called on my cell phone.
It's the only one I have. And their first question was, you know, they introduced themselves, but their first question was, am I registered to vote?
Now, I wasn't thinking clearly, because I should have said, yes, I'm registered to vote, so that then I could lie on the poll itself.
But they rejected me for not being a registered voter.
Now, was there any chance that if I had been a registered voter, is there any chance I would have told them the truth?
None. Not only is there no chance I would have told them the truth, I didn't even consider it.
It wasn't even my option set.
There was no point at which I said to myself, uh, should I say maybe I like Trump a little bit better as president?
Nope. Not even a little bit was I tempted to tell the truth.
I wasn't tempted to tell the truth.
That's how far away it is.
Because normally, I've got a pretty strong bias toward telling the truth unless I'm going to die or something.
Unless you're literally protecting somebody's life or income or there's something big on the line, I don't like lying at all.
I mean, I hate it. It's something I try to avoid as much as possible.
It never works out. Even if you try to lie, it never works.
That's my experience.
I wouldn't lie in almost any situation, but I definitely would have lied to the pollster because that's a security, safety kind of a thing.
And certainly that would be morally acceptable, in my view.
There was an article, Joel Pollack in Breitbart today, talking about Joe Biden, who will not disavow the protesters who are also the violent ones.
And this puts him in the category of saying that all the people at the riots are fine people.
Which is, turnabout is fair play.
Now, what is the difference, or is there, between the people who said to President Trump when he said there were some fine people in Charlottesville at the Confederate statue and the neo-Nazi march, and the President said, well, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but they're not all neo-Nazis.
Some of them were just there because of the statues and they're fine people.
But what's the difference between that, at which point somebody's, not somebody, lots of people said, well, you can't be a fine person if you're at the same event with the neo-Nazis.
It just can't happen. Well, of course it can happen because we're a big, diverse country where any big gathering has lots of different people.
So of course they could be there.
Of course. It would be weird to not have counter-protesters in America.
You pretty much always expect that.
But the point is, how can the Democrats, how can Joe Biden, say that it's okay to march with the people who are literally rioting Literally Antifa, literally want to burn down the courthouse, literally want to get rid of police, hurt the police, literally want to overthrow the country, are literally bad.
But those people who are marching with them, and obviously giving them a boost, they're not doing something wrong?
It feels like, at this point, the people who just wanted to get the message out, Are kind of done, aren't they?
Raise your hand.
Has anybody not heard Black Lives Matter?
Has anybody not heard that?
Is there anybody who needs to get their mind changed more on that topic?
Probably not. We're probably as persuaded as we're going to be.
And there really isn't much of anybody on the other side.
There's nobody arguing for Black Lives Not Mattering.
Nobody's arguing that.
And nobody's even saying we won't look at a proposal.
Nobody's even saying we're closed off to how to improve.
Nothing. So what is the purpose of the further protests?
If the message is completely received, and I'd say it is, it's completely received, why are they protesting?
Well, you have to ask yourself if it's more about the bad element being the driving force.
And it's starting to look like that.
Now, the interesting thing about this, and of course in our world everything comes back to Trump one way or another, is that every day these protests go on, I'm pretty sure is a good day for Trump.
Now, it might not feel like that yet, but it's one of those things that the longer it goes, the different it looks.
When a protest or a riot first starts, you say to yourself, well, it's unfortunate about the rioting and the looting, But there was certainly a good reason for the protest.
So you can kind of excuse it in the early days.
But once we've heard all the message, and there's not much pushback about the general idea of, let's not have the police kill people that don't need to be killed, you know, that sort of thing.
You know, racism, could it be better?
Could we improve the schools?
Open to all that. But I think Trump is just going to get stronger every day these go on because the original message will dim in importance and all you're going to see is it just looks like trouble.
Now, the interesting part is that so far Trump is only using his federal forces, the Department of Homeland Security, I think in just one place, defending a federal building in Portland.
They're on call for Seattle And other places too, I think.
But they're just on call.
And their job is to protect federal assets, apparently.
This is being turned into by people like the Lincoln Project and Rick Wilson, who's got some real explaining to do.
I think Rick Wilson has some explaining to do in his life, but that's his problem.
You may know of some of his troubles.
But they're trying to turn it into that these are secret police with secret badges, and it's a Trump secret police.
And I'm trying to figure out where that will rank on the list of Trump hoaxes.
You know, the top one would be Russia collusion.
Then I'd say the other tent pole would be the fine people hoax.
There's the he suggested ingesting actual household disinfectant hoax.
The hoax list is pretty long at this point.
But I wonder where the secret police hoax will be.
I think it'll be in the top four.
Possibly a top four.
And now the media is trying to turn it into that Trump is causing the riots by allowing the Department of Homeland Security to protect a federal building.
And that's causing a riot.
Because they look like secret police.
They're not, but they look that way.
Have you noticed a lot of women getting their asses kicked in these riots and on video?
Every day I go to Twitter.
It's the first thing I do is I look at all the new Andy Noe videos, etc.
And it feels like, have women become a lot more aggressive recently?
Is anybody noticing this?
And I can't tell if what's happening is that women feel they won't be killed.
Because that's generally true, right?
If a woman gets in a fight, she doesn't usually get killed.
But if a man gets in a fight, there's a pretty good chance one of you is going to end up dead.
So, I feel like women are just getting...
Well, somebody said the chubby ones in the comments.
I wasn't going to say that, but you can't not notice it.
It's impossible not to notice that the women who are getting into the fights tend to be larger.
And maybe that's part of why they're braver.
They just have more mass to put against it.
That's not a universal truth.
We just watched a skinny white woman get roughed up by the police on video yesterday.
But she was yelling in their faces and provoking them, so they finally just took her down.
But I haven't seen anything like this.
This is the angriest, most violent group of women I've ever seen anywhere.
I don't think I've even seen another country with so many women getting into violent fights every day, at least on video.
So it may be overstated because the video makes you think it's everywhere, but it isn't.
Alright, what else we got going on?
This is the biggest story that gets no attention.
And it's mind-blowing to watch the biggest stories be ignored while the smallest stories become the story.
The smallest story is that the police sometimes kill somebody or somebody dies during the arrest phase.
But it's so small. I mean, in terms of the number of people affected, even if you count the families of the people who died, it's still a small number compared to just about every other problem.
So we're sort of an upside-down world where we're making the biggest story out of the smallest story.
But here's the biggest story.
Apparently the United States policy about China has changed to regime change What?
So Mike Pompeo apparently says it directly, that regime change is now the new policy.
So we went from trying to work a deal with China to finding out that we can't, that their mindset is such that they only want an abusive deal, or apparently no deal at all.
So it looks like no deal at all is where it's going to head, but Pompeo is just going at it directly and saying, now, our goal is the regime change in China.
Now, can the United States get that done?
Now, I don't believe that that means supporting a revolution or anything.
I can't see that working in China.
But it probably does mean not dealing with China as a country.
It probably does mean Moving our facilities out, it probably does mean putting up more obstacles than we ever were.
It probably does mean putting more naval assets in the contested areas, etc.
So this is a really big story.
It's by far the most important thing that's happening, I would say.
More important than climate change.
More important than everything.
More important than coronavirus.
More important than the economy, I guess you could say, is the most important thing.
But It's way up there.
And you won't see much about that today, I'll bet.
It'll be an ignored story.
Speaking of ignored stories, Jonathan Turley, you know of him, a constitutional lawyer type, and he's writing in The Hill how he's astonished that the media is just ignoring the fact that the Obama administration did make up an excuse to spy on the Trump campaign.
And we're trying to figure out why this isn't the biggest story in the country.
Is it just because it's about Trump?
And that it would be good for Trump because it would vindicate him for when he said that his wires were being tapped?
Which, you know, not technically true in terms of tapping, but true enough.
I mean, basically, he correctly called out that his campaign was being spied on, and that was just true.
Now, I'm trying to figure out why this story isn't getting the traction it should.
It got a lot of traction on the Fox News and the right, but it just didn't cross over.
It just never became a narrative on the mainstream media.
And I have a few theories why.
The obvious one is that The media can't admit that they sold us a hoax for three years or whatever it was.
So the media doesn't want to point out their own wrongness.
They don't want to support Trump.
So that might be the entire reason.
But the other reason is this.
It's kind of complicated.
And even when I think I understand it, even just reading Jonathan Turley's article, I'll find four things I didn't know, or I used to know and I forgot, So it's just this big complicated thing of why did somebody talk to somebody?
What did Carter Page, you know, what did they have to do?
Was he a CIA agent?
Did he work with them?
What did Russia do? Where was the dossier?
Just way too many people involved.
Way too many people.
So I think because it's complicated and because it dripped out, you know, little fact, little fact, little fact, It just never got traction.
So part of it is that it dribbled out, so it lost all of its energy by dribbling.
The other is that it's complicated, so we wouldn't understand it if we saw the details.
And then, of course, they just don't want to make Trump look good.
On PredictIt and other betting platforms, Kamala Harris just got a big upswing.
No explanation is given, but she's now at 39% chance of winning.
At least according to the people betting.
If you go look at predictive markets, doesn't the stock market tell you that Trump is going to win?
It feels like it, right?
Unless there's going to be some giant plot to tank the stock market right before the election, which is possible.
So do not be surprised if the stock market takes a serious dump between now and November.
But it might be politically motivated.
So it could be real.
Maybe the economic outlook won't look that good, and it'll just be a natural decline, which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, and it wouldn't be unexpected, actually.
But at the moment, the stock market captures the economy, obviously.
It captures our optimism.
But I also think that the stock market at the moment...
Is capturing coronavirus.
So if you look at the biggest things that the president has to do, it's stuff like, you know, trade deals with China and coronavirus and the economy.
And the stock market kind of captures all of that because they're all interconnected.
And it's high. You know, it went down a little bit the last few days, but it basically is high.
So isn't that predicting that Trump will win?
Just a question there.
So I keep seeing this graph by a user named GummyBear.
Now GummyBear was recommended to me as being a good credible source on the coronavirus stuff.
Now GummyBear is obviously a pseudonym for someone who Apparently has some kind of credentials, I don't know what kind, but they're the good kind because the Twitter feed has lots of credible looking good analysis according to people who have been following it.
So I started following Gummy Bear and there's one graph that Gummy Bear has posted a number of times and it's really persuasive.
Super persuasive.
If you're a nerd like I am about data visualization, it's just really good.
It's like thrillingly well designed just to give you information.
But I don't know if it's accurate.
So I don't know if the data is right.
I just know that the way it's presented was great.
And what it was is It just ranked all the countries, their death rate, by how they used hydroxychloroquine.
If they had used it early, according to the graph, which has some credibility questions, that's what I'm going to get to, it would show that the countries that didn't use hydroxychloroquine early have all these problems.
The ones that did use it in a modest way have half as many problems, and those who used it aggressively have practically no problems.
And so I put it out there and I had to tweet and say, can somebody tell me if this is accurate?
Because if it is accurate, we're done.
Right? We're done.
Somebody says, it's fake.
Why are you arguing? So I put it out there to let other people pick it apart.
And sure enough, some people said, well, you know, I'm looking at the graph, but I'm looking at this country.
And it's in the wrong place, or it doesn't capture it right.
Somebody says, I doubt such data is available.
I also didn't see a date on it, so it might have been over a month ago when things looked different.
Somebody says, why not research it yourself?
Let me answer that question.
Somebody said, why not research it myself?
That's the dumbest question in the world.
And I have to be blunt.
Everybody who thinks that they are capable of researching this themselves, you're just kidding yourself.
Even the experts can't do it.
If the experts could research this stuff, they would all agree, right?
If what you could do is use your expertise and dig into it a little bit, the people with expertise would be on the same side.
But you don't see anything like that happening.
What you see is the experts digging in And coming to completely different conclusions.
So if you think you can do what the experts clearly can't do, because they're not coming to the same conclusions, why do you think I can do it?
Why would you suggest that I would be able to do this thing that literally no one in the world can do?
It's just undoable.
Now you can think you did it, and you can do your research and you can come to a conclusion.
But you would be talking yourself into it.
You would be talking yourself into stupidity, basically.
This confirmation bias is going to look just like it.
I mentioned the Michael Jackson allegations about pedophilia, and now I've seen three different Pieces of video content.
One made a case that said, oh, definitely he's guilty.
No doubt about it.
I watched another and you look at it and you go, oh, wow, it's all a con.
None of it was true.
I watched another one yesterday that added more fuel to the none of it was true fire.
So I did my research, right?
I looked into the whole Michael Jackson situation and what happened?
Couldn't tell a thing. I mean, if I had to be in a jury, based on what I saw, I would say, definitely not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I mean, it's way beyond reasonable doubt.
You know, reasonable doubt is just a thin sliver of, well, maybe.
Maybe he's not guilty.
The Michael Jackson thing is mostly reasonable doubt.
It's like 95% reasonable doubt, 5% chance maybe something happened and there just didn't happen to be any evidence.
So, I use that as an example of how doing your own research doesn't do you a bit of good.
It really doesn't. It's a complete illusion.
And that probably has to do with our belief that we can do more than we can do.
Somebody says, interview Dr.
Zelenko. Terrible idea.
Terrible idea. Whoever is saying in the comments, and I don't mean to pick on you, but you could not be less helpful than to suggest that I interview one expert.
I've said this before, but it sounds like I have to say it again.
It is a disservice to the audience for someone who can't ask the right questions to interview an expert.
Because all you're going to hear is his side of it.
You're going to hear one side of the Michael Jackson It's always convincing if you hear one side.
It's the same reason I won't talk to Dr.
Shiva on this topic.
Because Dr. Shiva will say technical things, and then I'll say, I don't know.
And then you will have gotten this unfiltered opinion that you know there's another opinion on the other side, but you didn't hear it.
Now somebody says in the comments that Dr.
Zhu did a periscope with Zelenko.
Now that's how you do it.
Actually, I like to look for that.
If a doctor is interviewing a doctor, and the doctor doing the interviewing has a broad experience enough to ask the right questions, that's exactly what you should read.
But don't ask me to bring one expert on, on a medical or scientific thing, unless I have some background.
So I don't mind bringing somebody on and say a nuclear energy question, because I've done enough reading where I can at least ask the right questions.
Thanks to Mark Schneider and Michael Schellenberger who have educated me a little bit, enough to ask the right questions.
Alright, so, and I'm sorry if I make a big deal about that, the bringing the one expert on, but that's the biggest problem in the world right now.
The biggest problem in the world is that people still believe that if they hear one expert, that they learn something.
That is so not true.
If you've only heard one expert, You have probably been misled.
Probably. Not every time.
Boris Johnson is doing something awesome.
You know, one of the problems with being a leader is that the most important things you can do will sometimes be the most boring, and they don't get you any attention, and they don't get you re-elected.
So I'm going to give a big, big, big shout-out and props Thumbs up to Boris Johnson for just this.
I don't have a comment on Boris Johnson's entire political career, but just this.
He's going to make a big deal about weight loss, using himself as an example.
So, you know, he had his coronavirus scare, and it's worse for people who have weight problems, apparently.
And I think that might have been a wake-up call.
He'd wanted to lose weight anyway.
But now he's getting serious about it, and he goes for a run every day, changing his diet.
And I can't think of anything that would be more directly beneficial to the country than having the leader promote good fitness and exercise.
It's really important. And I guess in Great Britain, the obesity level is just out of control.
And the way Boris Johnson is selling it is exactly right.
He's selling it as a way to protect UK's national health system.
Boom! There you are.
If you said to people, you should lose weight for your own benefit, well, people say, I'll figure out what my benefit is.
I don't need Boris Johnson telling me what to do with my personal life.
You just run the government, Boris.
I'll decide if I eat a cheesesteak.
So he's not doing it that way.
So he's not saying this will be good for you if you lose weight.
He's saying this is how you lower costs, basically.
This is how you make National Health Service possible.
I would say that President Trump is missing the biggest opportunity with health care.
Because there is a Republican plan...
It just hasn't been put together.
So I guess you could say it's not a plan.
But if you looked at all the individual things that the Trump administration wants to do for healthcare, Such as the executive orders on pharmaceutical costs, lowering meds costs, etc.
There's a whole bunch of individual things that will make things more competitive, could bring the prices down, such as making it possible to do telehealth over the internet across state lines.
These little changes in the regulatory environment can have a big impact.
But one of the things that Trump could do Which I guess it would be hard for him to do because he's got a few pounds himself, is to do what Boris Johnson's doing and just say, if you want more people to have health care than the people who already have health care, maybe they should lose some weight.
Because if the people who already had health care, well, plus the people who don't, you could say the whole public, if the whole public of the United States simply became more fit, they just lost weight, Got a little more exercise.
What would that do to the total cost of healthcare service?
Well, if you've had an opportunity to go to a doctor's waiting room or emergency room, is there something that you notice?
Not so much an emergency room, because those would be accidents.
But let's say you go to a normal doctor's waiting room, back when you could be in a room with other people.
And you sit down and look at the other people in the room.
How many of them have a weight problem?
A lot. A lot.
What would be the total cost reduction in healthcare if people got healthier?
It could be a lot. 10%?
A 10% reduction in healthcare just by getting people healthier?
That's enormous, dollar-wise.
But I'm not sure Trump is quite the right guy for that message unless he was going to lead by doing it the way Boris Johnson is.
So, I'm sorry, weight loss is the most boring political question, but that's my point.
It's the most important, and it's the most directly beneficial to people's lives.
A plus Boris Johnson.
Alright. It seems like we're going to be treated to a constant drip of stories about Sports teams and whether or not they all kneeled.
Is there anything you're less interested in lately?
Do you remember when that was first the story?
Oh, these athletes, some of them are kneeling.
Kaepernick, he's disrespecting our flag and all that.
But now when they're all kneeling, or close to all, and it's all the teams, It just lost all of its everything, didn't it?
It doesn't have any shock value.
It just looks sort of weak and pathetic, which has nothing to do, by the way, with the cause.
So when I say it looks weak and pathetic, it has nothing to do with the cause.
It has only to do with the way they're doing it.
There's a news story that doesn't deserve to be a news story that Joe Biden turned down Fox News' Chris Wallace for an interview.
Now, as you know, Chris Wallace did interview President Trump and gave him a pretty tough interview.
One would imagine that Chris Wallace would be a tough interview with Joe Biden.
So they turned it down.
But is the news that Chris Wallace was turned down for an interview, is that the news?
Isn't the news that just Biden doesn't talk to anybody?
I don't think it has anything to do with Chris Wallace.
Is there anybody on the Fox News network who could get Biden to come on the air and answer questions?
There's nobody who could do that.
It has nothing to do with Chris Wallace.
But it turned into a Chris Wallace story, I don't know, because it makes it look worse for Biden or something.
But I don't know how it could look any worse than I'm not going to have a debate and I'm not going to answer questions.
I should tell you everything you need to know there.
Oh, I keep forgetting to talk about President Trump's latest name for the coronavirus.
So he's calling it the China virus now.
You recall that when he was calling it the Chinese virus, people were saying a racist.
You racist, don't call it Chinese because then...
Chinese Americans will be mocked for it, even though they have nothing to do with it.
And indeed, that looks like that actually was happening, which is tragic.
But now he's gone from Chinese virus to China virus.
And it's very clever, because you think there's something wrong with it, still.
But there isn't. When he said Chinese, you could say to yourself, wait a minute.
Chinese would refer to, maybe it came from China, but it also, the word refers to the people.
We're not really talking about the people.
We should be talking about the government or the place.
But when he changes it to China, that is unambiguously about the place.
You could argue it's also about the government, but what it definitely isn't is about So that's an upgrade.
But what's clever about the upgrade is, because China and Chinese are close enough, in your mind, it still feels inappropriate, but it isn't.
Because now it's just a description of where it came from.
Just like other flus that are named after the place that they came from.
So I love the fact that he took something that really wasn't the right way to go about it.
Chinese, it just wasn't the right word.
But he fixed it.
He tweaked it. He tweaked it to China.
And now people are going to be just as angry about it, but they don't have a reason because China is a different word.
All right. Um...
The best thing that could happen for Trump's re-election chances are for other countries to have bad infections that pop back up.
And it feels guaranteed, doesn't it?
Isn't it sort of guaranteed that other countries are going to have flare-ups, even the ones that are doing well?
I feel like it's guaranteed.
And it should be guaranteed just because the world still has travel.
So no matter how good your little country of Estonia does, if you're surrounded by people that have, well, let's say even one of those countries still have it, well, you're going to get it back.
And if you get it back, isn't it going to flare again before you can get on top of it?
So probably the biggest factor...
In Trump's re-election will be coronavirus and how people feel he did with it.
And that will be almost entirely based on what other countries do.
Because if he looks like he's just in the middle of the pack and other countries are having problems then, then you're going to have to say to yourself, it looks like leadership didn't matter.
It will actually look like leadership didn't matter.
Because you'll see all these different leaders who did different things And none of them had a great result.
And some that did, you don't know why.
Here's what's confusing about all this.
These are the candidates for why some countries may or may not have had better results.
And look at how many factors there are.
There's better mask compliance.
Now, experts will argue whether that even makes any difference.
I'm on the side of saying it obviously does.
Social distancing, that has a little to do with lifestyle, but are some countries better at it?
What's your vitamin D levels?
How much diabetes do you have in the country, which gets to age and demographics?
The hydroxychloroquine use, does it matter?
Don't know yet. It's still uncertain.
Tuberculosis shots, that's another factor.
Apparently there's some correlation if you've had tuberculosis shots, you have more immunity, I think.
And then there's some news today about there's some genetic variant that some people have that might make them far more susceptible.
So look at all these things that are like big, big variables.
And we don't know how important any of them are.
Listen to these again and realize that we don't know anything about any of them.
And they're the biggest variables.
We don't know if the masks make a big difference, a little difference.
People are still arguing. I have my opinion, but people are arguing.
Social distancing? I don't know.
Can you really tell that another country did it better?
How do you compare? It's hard to compare.
How much is enough? How much is too much?
Vitamin D? I don't know.
Diabetes? Looks like 40 or 50% of the people...
I think 50% of the people under a certain age...
are dying with diabetes as a comorbidity.
When we look at the experience of other countries, are we seeing other countries with the same race of diabetes, the same demographics?
No. Same hydroxychloroquine use?
No. Tuberculosis shots?
No. Genetic variants?
I don't know. Are they different in different groups?
So, we will never know if Trump did a good job or a bad job, in all likelihood.
We'll probably never know.
So if we never know if he's doing a good job or a bad job, because there are just too many variables to know which ones matter, and then you've got the therapeutics and you've got the vaccines maybe or maybe not coming online, I would say that we'll have enough room for everybody to have their own opinion.
But the one thing that's the most solid argument for Trump, if it happens, is Is that other countries got into trouble and we're just somewhere in the middle of the pack.
If it turns out that we're just somewhere in the middle, I think you just have to say leadership didn't make a difference.
Because we don't know what to lead to.
Leadership makes a difference if you know where you're going and it's the right thing and hindsight says, yeah, that was the right thing.
But if you don't know what the right thing to do is, leadership almost doesn't matter.
You just have to try things and adjust.
And that's what everybody's doing.
All right. That is about all I have to say for today.
Somebody says it's not about the leadership.
It's about the systems in place and the ability to prioritize.
Maybe so.
Certainly the fact that we have states' rights puts us in a different category from some small country where they can just say, hey, everybody do this.
Whereas in the United States, it's 50 different entities saying do this or that.
Just looking at your...
Your comments.
Alright. Did I speak about China in Houston?
Yeah, I talked... Not today, but I have talked about the consulate being closed.
And there will be a lot more of that, I think.
Remember, no straws after surgery.
What? Oh, so just to warn you, so my surgery is on the...
29th, a few days.
I probably might miss a periscope, but I'll tweet at you and let you know.
Oh yeah, this is the Nadler video.
So Nadler was found on a park bench by, I don't know, Hogan, Hogan, Rogan Handley.
And they asked him about the violence, and he thought that there was no violence, it was just protests.
Now, do you think he actually believes that?
And what are the chances that Jerry Nadler is going to survive coronavirus?
If Jerry Nadler got coronavirus, he's kind of dead, isn't he?
I mean, I don't mean to be unkind, but he would be sort of the poster child of people who are not going to make it through coronavirus.
So if I were him, I don't know how he...
I mean, he's pretty brave to come to work at all.
I think he's coming to work and wearing his mask on his forehead, I saw a picture.
That's pretty brave. Because he's definitely in the death zone there, the kill box.
So we'll give him that.
Thank you for the good wishes, and I will talk to you.
