 We need to be outraged by everything that has happened. I see too many people, too many people accepting the shutdowns, accepting the federal government's decrees, accepting that Donald Trump did the best that he could, or that Como is whatever. I mean, this way too much. Regardless of authority, there's way too much acceptance of a, in a sense, a strong man being strong in the face of a crisis. God damn it, these people are utter complete fools. They have no idea what they are doing. They are predominantly engaged in destruction. They are unthinking. They do not plan. They have no data. They are complete failures, complete failures. And I don't care who you're talking about. I mean, and I include here, I don't know the doctor who everybody praises working on Trump's team. I mean, if the doctor was honest, he would call it like it is now because he'd get fired. But good, everybody should be fired. Everybody competent should be fired from Trump's administration. Because they should all speak up. And until we speak up about the complete failures, yeah, I mean, we can blame China all day long. And now, you know, the new excuse I've got. Trump was too busy with impeachment. The Democrats distracted him. He couldn't focus on this. If he had focused this, if he had focused, everything would have been fantastic. So we need to be outraged. Outraged by the lack of testing. Outraged by the lack of data. Outraged by the lack of information. Outraged by the lack of honesty from every portion of our government. Outraged that the only two ideas that they could come up with are nothing or stay at home shut down. That the entire scope of their thinking, of their attempts to solve the problem involved these two possibilities. And that's it. Nothing else. Not respond, shut everybody down. Shut all the economy down. Shut activity down. That's all they can imagine. It's all they can think about. I mean, I can think of, if I try it, I'm sure, 10, 12 different alternatives in between those two. And now that somebody has shut down, like New York, well, now everybody wants to shut down because they don't want to be the ones that with two lacks. And why think when you can just emulate? I mean, our politicians in here across the board are second-handed and unthinking. We should be outraged by the fact that almost nobody talks about the fact. The death rate in this disease is primarily old people. And I repeat this because I said this on the beginning, but it seemed nobody, I watch television, I don't watch a lot, but a little bit, I look at the news, I read articles, and there's almost no discussion of this. As if it's somehow tainted to say people over 70 have a really relatively high level of mortality. Under 70, if you've got diabetes, heart disease, or some other immune deficiency, you're also at high risk. But the rest of us, the risk is not zero, but the risk is not zero in anything one does in life. The rest of us have a low probability of dying. Have a low probability of ending up in an emergency room in a hospital. And if we do, we're likely to survive. We're likely to survive. You don't change your entire life for small odds like that of catching a disease that is probably, probabilistically not going to destroy your life. So why can't we talk? Why can't we talk as a culture, as a world, as a, in politics, in media and elsewhere? Why can't we talk about the fact that this is a disease that is killing old people? And if we really cared about it not killing old people, we would focus all of our energy, all of our efforts, all of our focus on protecting them. If we took, I don't know, a fraction of the $2.2 trillion stimulus package and just said we are now going to try to isolate every person in the United States over the age of 70. We're going to provide them with a budget for groceries to be delivered to them. And we are going to make it as easy as possible for them not to leave their home until we figure this out. Now notice that that has very little negative economic consequences because most old people don't work. So why can't we do that? We can't even talk about it, it seems. And yeah, it's a lot of people. I don't know what the numbers are for the number of people over 75, over 70. It's a lot of people, but it's less than locking up everybody, having everybody stay at home, giving out $2.2 trillion to what, to bail out everybody. It's less than keeping all this children away from school. Why are we doing that? We're doing that, the logic says, because the children get the disease, nothing really bad happens to them for the most part. But then they will go to their grandparents and transmit it to their grandparents. So isolate the grandparents and the grandkids. But no, we can't talk about that. And it's, I think it's a number of things. It's a number of things. First one, you can't discriminate. You can't talk about old people as different than everybody else. Any more than you can talk about differences between men and women, I guess. And there's a certain patriotism, there's a certain appeal to all in this together that appeals to people of left and right. It reminds me of the Neocons, who before 9-11, Peter Brooks was one of them, Peter Brooks, David Brooks, David Brooks was one of them, who was urging for a war, for a terrorist attack, so we could have a war, because the war would give us a cause to fight together towards. And it's like, people think this is cool. We've now got real leadership. Look at Como. Oh my God. He's so presidential. What does presidential mean? Authoritarian. He's got command of the situation. He knows what to do. He's on emergency footing. People love this stuff. And they love the collectivism that's involved. So we can't identify old people as problematic as the problem. And solve the problem, not old people, so we're going to ignore them and let them all die. Let's focus our efforts on them, but let everybody else live, because you can't do that. You can't discriminate. You can't profile. You can't pick out certain people, unless you're going to condemn them, like bankers or businessmen or billionaires. Then you can condemn. But you can't say, we're going to just help old people, because they're the targeted audience. We're going to help them stay isolated. But no, we have to shut down everybody. And by the way, if you are, and I've said this over and over again, if you are, if you have diabetes or heart disease or high blood pressure or the various conditions that make you most susceptible to die from this virus, and there are lists out there, you can go find them. It's hard, because they don't like to publish the stuff. And only now are they releasing some of the data on Americans. Because again, we don't have data. We'll get to that in a minute. Just isolate yourself. Take care of yourself. Try not to get the virus. But the fact is, the rest of us are probably going to get it over the next 18 months. Almost all of us are going to get it, and indeed, won't actually getting it be part of the solution by creating herd immunity, by creating so many people who have it. The virus has no way to travel, no way to go, just dies out. It's that or a vaccine. There's no other alternative. Otherwise, we'll be in constant relief, shutdown, relief, shutdown, relief, shutdown mode. So, let's discriminate. And I don't think you need to use coercive measures for this. I think you can use voluntary measures, though, given that we all pay for healthcare of old people, through Medicare. Maybe we have to curse. And in terms of coercion, which I'm against, sometimes in a mixed economy, there's no alternative, but we're cursed to pay Medicare. I'd like to keep these old people out of the hospitals. And by the way, I'm getting close to that age where I could be categorized as one of those old people, right? So I have nothing against them because I'm going to be one of them very, very soon, right? You know, given that if it's voluntary and they don't act on it, we have to pay, you know, it's not outrageous to think of coercion, but only in the context of a mixed economy and a mixed world in which we live, because there are lots of other ways, things we could have done and should have done and would have done if we were free, they would have avoided us getting into this situation. So we should be outraged, outraged that our government won't even consider treating old people differently than everybody else. And then we should be outraged at the fact that for a month, now a lot of people saying the Chinese lied, the Chinese deceived, the Chinese held back on the true scope of the issue. They did. I mean, it's an authoritarian government. The whole point for us is not to get to where we are like China, which we're becoming more like China. We're not becoming less like China. You can criticize China all you want, but we're going to wake up very soon. And we're not going to be any different than China. We're going to be relying on our authoritarian thugs to rule our lives, to dictate all our decisions. And at some point, even today, even today, I mean, there's information being hidden from us. There's information that's incomplete. There's our leaders have lied to us. Our leaders have deceived us, maybe not to the same extent as the Chinese have. But it's an issue of degree, not an issue of substance. But yes, the Chinese deferred, waited, it was late. But Trump put on a travel ban. At the point we put on a travel ban, he knew something was wrong. We have intelligence services. We have experts on these things. You would think that they were figuring out what was going on in China. And by that point, information was coming out of China. By that point, they weren't hiding it. Maybe they were hiding the extent. Maybe they're still hiding the extent. I don't know. But by late January, we knew because we put on a travel ban. Now, it's a time I had Amesh Adulja on the show who said, travel dans, don't work. The virus is already in America. It's going to play out. OK, so the travel ban maybe slowed things down. But what did we do? So it was good, you could argue, maybe, because it bought us time. But that's only an argument if you do something in the time that you're buying. What did we do? Instead of in late January, deregulating FDA and CDC and getting testing done and approving testing equipment from everybody and ramping up testing on a massive unprecedented scale. Because that is the one way you deal with the pandemic. Test everybody and isolate the people who have it and isolate the people who have it came in contact with. It's not impossible to do. The South Koreans have done a pretty good job at it. Instead of doing that, no, Trump said, oh, this is like the flu. It's no big deal. We don't have to do anything. Nothing's going on. So for a month, we procrastinated. We bought the time and we procrastinated. Why didn't the government put out a bid? So we knew that we could model this thing. And by early February, we started seeing what was going on in Italy. Oh, sometime in late February, early March. Why don't we put out a bid at that point? I don't know how much a ventilator costs. Let's say a ventilator costs $10,000. Imagine the government would put out a bid and say, all right, we're short 100,000 ventilators. We are willing to buy 100,000 ventilators at a flat rate of $15,000 each. You get a huge profit. We don't mind because we want to ramp up production of ventilators. And we're in the market. And the lives of people are important. And we're willing to buy all the ventilators you can produce. Do you have any doubt that American manufacturers would be ramping up and building ventilators that they could make huge profit on? By the way, the same with masks, the same with all the protective gear that we are now short on. Where were we in February? Where were we in March? Why weren't we just putting out bids above market price, significantly above market price? Give them huge profits. But huge profits are huge incentives. Huge profits reallocate resources in the marketplace. Instead of a $2.2 trillion, I don't know what to call it, stimulus package, we could have stimulated the production of the things we need to fight this thing. None of that was done. And again, this is not science fiction. This is not anything complex. Now, we are benefiting today from hindsight to some extent. But we have leaders who are supposed to get the data and have a plan on how to deal with it. And the data suggested, and we've been talking about shortages of ventilators, shortages of masks, shortages and all these other things, we have been talking about this for weeks and weeks and weeks. Why haven't they adopted a simple solution? Pay people to produce it. 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 the stare, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped 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 uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next.