 Somebody is asking, when do you think we'll know if getting the disease actually gives you immunity? So what we think with most infectious diseases is once you get infected you have some level of immunity for some period of time. That's usually on the matter of months, but we know with other coronaviruses that your immunity wanes over about a period of a year and you can be reinfected at least experimentally. So I think it'll probably take a year to know exactly if people can be reinfected at that time. I don't suspect if you just got infected this month that you're going to be able to be reinfected in the next day or so. And I think the question is how durable is that immunity? So what about those cases in South Korea where they seem to have people who had it recently being reinfected? So it's important to remember the test is not testing for the viable virus. It's just testing for genetic material. And it's now been shown, and this is what we all suspected, was that when you get this virus it damages parts of your lungs and there's debris. And people coughed that up over a period of time. And what ended up happening was that virus was actually debris mixed in with debris that was clearing from their lung. They couldn't actually culture the virus. It's just testing for the genetic material. So those people were not reinfected. Yeah, good. That's good news. So there is such a thing as herd immunity and it ultimately could happen even without a vaccine. But a lot of people would die in the process. Yes, you need to get probably at least 60% or higher of the population infected and that's going to come at a huge cost. So we don't really want to do that if we can avoid it, especially because you can't really, we talk about cocooning the elderly and I think we need to cocoon the elderly as best as we can. But it's not iron clad and I think you have to really be careful about how you do that because there's going to be interactions between high risk individuals and low risk individuals. And I wish there was a way to hermetically seal them off so that you don't do that, but it's not an easy thing to do and you're seeing that in Sweden, for example. So is it true to say that if we do open up, and I expect we will, you know, at different paces and different places, that more people will die? I mean, that's just the reality. So yes, it is true. This isn't gone anywhere. And flattening the curve was never really about saving lives. It was preventing excess deaths. It was trying to spread out the same number of cases over a longer period of time. This has really been about hospital capacity. And right now there's kind of some people trying to move the goalposts here. And that's not what this was about. It was about hospital capacity. So for example, in Georgia, they are talking about the fact that they're going to get more cases. They're going to get more deaths and they're going to have beds. And I heard the Atlanta mayor say something like, you know, those are beds to die in after the to say that, you know, it doesn't matter because we're trying to save lives. But there's no way to do that when you're doing with an outbreak that's not going to go away. This is not a containable virus. So the American people have to realize that the number of cases is going to continue as soon as you start peeling back social distancing, the cases are going to go up. We expect that this is about preserving hospital capacity. And I think that needs to be the overriding philosophical principle that everybody has in mind because they're going. There are lots of people who misunderstand this. And I think it's because of the way this was presented by the by policymakers to the general public that they don't quite understand what flattening the curve actually meant. It's the same area under the curve. It's just happening over a longer period of time. And I mean, the only way in which that would change is if we actually got a treatment, right, that it was actually efficacious. Yeah, so we are, we did buy some time with this and we do have some good data coming out on Gilead's product where people improve much quicker. We didn't get a mortality benefit, but we get them out of the hospital faster if they get this treatment, which helps us with hospital capacity. So that is something that's good. Hopefully we will get some treatments that can change mortality. Maybe they'll do more studies on the Gilead drug in different patient populations showing a mortality benefit. That would be great. There are other drugs. There's so many drugs that are in clinical trials right now that I can't keep track of them all. And we are moving really rapidly towards a vaccine, which was really what we need to have. That's the only way that we remove this threat. But yes, if we could get something that decreased mortality, that would be really a huge benefit. So in what is your sense of success of, you know, the progress there and what do you think of this of the malaria drug and zinc and the combinations and all of the studies that have come out about that that sometimes seemed contradictory. So so hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are two drugs that that have been around for a long time that are used for malaria and some autoimmune conditions. And these have generic antiviral effects and immune modulating effects and stuff in the test tube that works against coronavirus, but they had never been put up against the coronavirus and they're not, even though they're approved and we give them to people they're not that doesn't mean that they're without side effects. Every drug has a side effect and every person has a risk benefit calculation you have to take. And what we're what we're seeing is people were and I actually prescribed it to two people before based on hospital based protocols, but we needed a randomized controlled trial and we still need a randomized controlled trial to actually know whether it works or not. But what we're finding is that the more and more data comes out it doesn't appear to necessarily have any real benefit here. And there is a cardio there is toxicity. These drugs do have have side effects and these side effects are different when you're giving them to a person who's not in the hospital who's outside who's got rheumatoid arthritis which is a debilitating disease and you give it that's a different side effect tolerance than someone who's got a mild case of coronavirus that may not need them, or someone who's hospitalized and really really sick and already having heart rhythm problems and then you're giving this drug to. So I think that all of that kind of got lost in the debate because you had people, you know, irresponsibly claiming that this is going to be this this panacea that everybody should be taking it. You had you had patients that so we I know firsthand patients that were asked to be to be in the clinical trial for it they wouldn't go in the clinical trial because the president said they should just take it anyway. So the these statements are actually hampering our ability to actually find out the true answer to this and and you can see now in the middle of this whole thing the FDA had to issue an advisory saying this is a toxic drug we don't recommend you give this without cardiac monitoring. So you really, you know, when politicians get into the science business they can really foul things up and I think the hydroxychloroquine example is a great one where science was really completely politicized and and you were either on the hydroxychloroquine camp or you weren't on the hydroxychloroquine camp and and I think that that really made it much, much worse than it had to be. I don't suspect it's going to be one of our best drugs against this. I think that Remdesivir the Gilead drug looks good and I think they're convalescent plasma giving blood from survivors that may likely have a benefit and there are other things that are going to come down the line. But I don't think that hydroxychloroquine is going to be the answer for this but we I want to get the trial results before I say definitively and hopefully that randomized controlled trial will finish soon. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time so I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribe star dot com Iranbrookshow and and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next.