 Look at the experts who actually planned for this, who actually have documents written about this. So if you look at a mesh who tracked this and who's written about it before and during, nobody thought in no plan document in the CDC in preparation for a pandemic, global pandemic, is lockdowns even a possibility, is that option? So this was from the hip, shooting from the hip out of nowhere based on no science, no data, nothing. Okay, now Amish is a number of times warned against the hospitals becoming overrun though. So solve that, right? So there are lots of ways to deal with hospitals. Now again, I don't disagree that given the ineptitude, given how bad it was in mid-March because they did nothing all of February and the first half of March, that you had no option but to shut down New York probably, but not the rest of the country, I don't think. But if you take all of those, but if you take just the shortages in hospital, if they had just looked at the hospitals in late January, when he shut down travel from China, so he knew it was a problem, and they said, okay, hospitals could be overloaded. Right. And they ramped up production of ventilators and ramped up production of PPE. Tests. And they ramped up production of tests, which they completely screwed up. And they ramped up and they brought the Army in to build field hospitals, which they ultimately did, but it was too little too late. Then I doubt any of the closures. So you can't say the closures are justified when the government has failed in everything it has done. And of course, even by your standards, there was no mea culpa. There was no two-week closure. There was nothing. So if they had done all those things and then come to the conclusion, yes, in order to really protect the rights of doctors and so on over the next two weeks when he shut down New York, fine. But they didn't do any of that. So the less they do and the less information they have because they had no information. Remember, they don't know how. We still don't know how. Well, okay. Again, they had a lot of information about the deaths and they suspected probably China was covering up. In Italy, it was just carnage. We don't know. There wasn't that many deaths in China. If you look back, I wish we only had China. If that was the standard, then they shouldn't have shut down anything. Well, China, of course, shut down more draconian way than we did here. Yeah, but Italy was a disaster, but nobody knows why it was a disaster. And Italy shut down in massively draconian ways and yet it was still a disaster. It's an ongoing disaster even right now. And we didn't have real information about why Italy was Italy and why other countries are not Italy. And yet we acted out of, in California, elsewhere. I mean, they acted out of fear and ignorance. And you cannot have government shutting down out of fear of ignorance. They need to have data, information, and a plan. Again, the burden of proof is on them. And I don't think Gavin Newsom had provided the burden of proof. I don't think, you know, Como did. The only place I think shut down is New York City. And maybe as it rolled away in New Orleans and Detroit and a few other hotspots, but you first have to identify a hotspot and then shut it down. You can't claim that the whole of California is a hotspot. That is by all standards, just untrue and invalid. Nothing about California is like Italy, certainly not the Central Valley or other places or the Pacific, you know. No, no, and I mean, I agree that Newsom didn't uphold his side and still is not. In fact, at one point, he had ordered nursing homes to take in, again, patients who had been infected with COVID-19 and nursing homes. We know now that nursing homes are one of the worst places. Why? Because of the air circulated throughout the whole place. That's part of the big things is when you've got a central air system circulating among all these people, some of whom are infected and some are not. It's gonna be just a hot zone for spreading. So he has done everything, and he's in the program now, as for today, by the way, in terms of the stealth power grabs going on here in California. It's at all levels of government right now. And so I agree with you. I mean, the lockdown weeks ago should have been ended at the very least, even if they had done it exactly properly from the beginning. And I think you and I could argue about whether way back when the knowledge would have justified some sort of a very limited measure. Hey, we're gonna ramp up some testing for a couple of weeks to see what in the world we're dealing with and then go on with lives. Sure, there was no limited anything. They didn't ramp up testing and they still haven't ramped up testing. So the conclusion has to be everything they did was wrong. And I think that one has to condemn them who went through it every step because they didn't do anything right. They didn't and they still haven't and they still not. And I think if they told people, I think you have to start by voluntarily asking people to self-quarantine and to self do self lockdowns before you have a statewide or what two thirds of the nation was in lockdown. Well, there were recommendations for social distancing that came out first, as I recall correctly before there was an actual lockdown. They should have pushed that though. And then they showed people at the beach in Florida but in New York, I don't know that people ignore those and it just is not, again, the burden of proof for such an extreme measure of shutting you down your home. I mean, the government can do it. I've given examples of where the government can do it. You know, remember the Boston Marathon bombing? And they were looking for the, now I think they overdid it even in Boston. They always overdid it. But they could have shut down the neighborhood. We're looking for the terrorists. Don't go out, it's your life. And you're getting to feel with police operations. Yes. If you cannot just say they're terrorists in town, we're not sure what they're gonna target. They're gonna shoot people in the street but we're not sure what street. And in some city in the United States, so the whole United States needs to be shut down. No, you have to have specific evidence about a specific threat. Right, right, right. Okay, and I agree with that in principle, but again, okay, today, suppose everybody just says, okay, I'm gonna assert my right to go out and take my life in my own hands and just go do what I want. And then the doctors cannot refuse to treat you no matter how careless and reckless and stupid you are and how much you endanger them and everybody else. And again, what we do know about this virus is that you can walk around with no symptoms and have it and be contagious. So it's a horrific virus, but look, there is a price to pay for the mixed economy. People are going to die. Who shouldn't die? People are going to suffer. Who shouldn't suffer? Yeah, and I would like to preserve health care workers. So at the very least, your own, your own, your own. All our rights. At the very least. In order to prevent. At the very least, at the very least, I think you and I could agree that it would be selfish to take certain measures to reduce the risk to doctors and nurses so that those resources at least are available for us if and when we need them for anything, not just COVID. I think it would be selfish to reduce the risk because we all have people we care about and loved ones who are older and so on. And you want to reduce the risk, period. The question is whether you do it voluntarily through coercion and anytime you give the state the power to do these things through coercion, you are in a world in which we live, you're creating a very, very dangerous precedent. Yeah. No, I mean, you are. And so this has to be. It's a power grab. You know, the ability to just shut down and nobody's challenging it because I think. Well, a lot of people are challenging it now. What I'm afraid of is that they're challenging it in an irrational way. They should use the Israeli example where the protests. That was beautiful. It's amazing. All stood six feet from one another and did it responsibly, but. That was beautiful. That was beautiful. Okay, so we, I guess, disagree about whether there was any lockdown justified at all even in today's economy. I say there would have been maybe a very short lockdown but both of us agree that regardless, the government has not upheld its part of the burden. There doesn't need to be lockdowns anymore. As I said, I don't think there was any option but to lock down New York for a while. Things were so bad there, but we have to recognize that they were bad because of government ineptitude two and a half months ago. Well, not only though, because I mean, I think, again, you know, the biggest thing that we've learned recently about this virus, right, is its transmission in those closed spaces. North Korea, or South Korea. I keep saying North Korea. Look at South Korea. Look at Taiwan. Look at how these countries handle it. Look at Iceland. Okay, but are they New York City in terms of public transportation subways and all that stuff? Maybe not, but just, its order of magnitude was in New York City because what they did in those places effectively and aggressively and amazingly. I mean, these are very, very high population and high population density places, not as quite as New York, but if you look at Seoul, South Korea. Now, they are unique characteristics to South Korea and to Taiwan, but what differentiates them is their aggressive testing. And if you had put testing all over New York and you had put testing, and look, New York, the people who mainly suffered when Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, if you'd just gone into those neighborhoods, aggressively tested, aggressively isolated people had it. And not be- Tracing, contact tracing. Not waited, but started doing that in, you know, February, not waited until March, then you could have prevented the overload to the hospitals. And look, hospitals in the end were not overloaded even with the pathetic response that we had, but because we shut everything down, but we shut everything down late. So if you had actually done the contact tracing, but primarily the testing and isolating and some contract tasting, I don't think we could have done it quite as effectively as Koreans. You would have had a lot of people die, but you wouldn't have overloaded the hospitals, I don't think. And healthcare professionals would have still been struggled, but they struggled anyway. And you would have not violated, you would have not constrained ability of people to live their lives. And maybe you still would have had it shut down in New York for two weeks. I'm not ruling that out. But then it would have been fine, right? It would have been over. Whereas this way, because you're fighting the curve, the whole idea of fighting the curve is the same number of people are going to die. They're just going to die over a longer period of time. But what's happened now is nobody wants to undo the lockdowns because people are still dying. And so people are still dying. So the press of undoing the lockdowns when people are still dying, but that was no point of the lockdowns. It wasn't- And then I wonder if some of the governments are manipulating the numbers, because of course now if you increase the testing, which a lot of them they're doing in California now, they're finally starting to test people who aren't even symptomatic, et cetera. The more testing you do, the more cases are going to be revealed. And when people look at those case numbers, they get all freaked out again, right? They're doing things to perpetuate this. The other way around though, because as you look at the case numbers, you look at the mortality rate, the mortality rate is plummeting. So the mortality rate is actually going down dramatically because we're- I'm actually seeing it about steady here locally, but yeah. Not if you compare it to the number of people who have it based on the serological tests. Okay, well I'll have to look at some more. I'm just looking at very local stats. Look at the local stats of people who have it versus people who died, that's fairly steady. If you think about who really has it, right? Not the people who tested positive, but those people who really have it, which is a much bigger number, then you divide- Well, and that's what I want to know. I want to know that in a more reliable way than what we've seen. And so I'm thinking I'm going to have to go get my two antibody tests myself to find out if I've- Pretty know it because the only people who allow it to be tested in most of the country are people who have already symptoms. That's changing here. That's changing here. No, it's changing, but so far. So we know that the people who are tested are the people who are highly likely to have it. Oh, sure. People who are not tested have the low high likelihood. So there's a lot of people who weren't tested. Even the 90% don't have symptoms who have this. Huge population of people who have this who have not been tested. Mortality rates are probably around 0.5, 0.6, which is what, funnily enough, what Amesh Adulja said they were in February. He said it was 0.6. And that's about what you're seeing. So he had a really good prediction. Excellent. Yeah, I would like to talk with him about some stuff too. That would be great. 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, whims 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 broad. 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 uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com, your Unbrook show and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...