The following is an excerpt from “Faucian Bargain: The Most Powerful and Dangerous Bureaucrat in American History” by Steve Deace and Todd Erzen, published by Post Hill Press.
Experts have expertise you and I don’t have, but they’re
not necessarily wiser, nor are they any less sinful. Experts are
also wrong all the time, because they’re human, too.
Experts told Admiral Nimitz he was dumb to listen to one
Japanese code-breaker and risk much of our remaining Naval
fleet on an ambush at Midway, which ended up turning the tide
of the Pacific theater in World War II. Experts told the apostles
there’s no such thing as a resurrection. Experts differed
mightily with Copernicus and Galileo. We could go on and on.
Plenty of “experts” right now think there are fifty-seven
genders, and human life happened because two amino acids
formed a single-celled protein 600 million years ago for no
reason whatsoever. Plenty of “experts” also love them some of
those open borders that allowed China to export its Wuhan
virus to our shores. Beware of easily handing your sovereignty
over to the experts, especially without skeptical vetting. For
sure, experts have done amazing things for humanity as well.
But a critical time such as this requires more questions, not
fewer.
Accountability never made any of us worse. But a lack of
it sure does.
Toward the end of his administration, it became obvious
President Trump had finally had it with [Dr. Anthony] Fauci’s antics and
exploits. Trump invited Dr. Scott Atlas from Stanford
University to join the Coronavirus Task Force, and Atlas took
center stage in trying to reset the narrative. We asked Atlas if
he could quantify for us the cost of not seeking wisdom in a
multitude of counsel. Of not pitting the best and brightest
minds against each other in a zealous pursuit of the truth, no
matter what, and instead investing all this power in the hands
of one unelected bureaucrat whose will mostly goes
unchallenged. Atlas replied:
This has gone on so long that people have lost track
of why the original shutdowns were done in the early stages of the pandemic. In the beginning no one was
prepared for a potential case fatality rate of 3.4%,
so a short-term shutdown was appropriate to flatten
the curve to stop hospitals from being overcrowded
so other medical care could go on. It was also
appropriate to buy time for the ramping up and
procuring of equipment. Though it was rare, there
were some hospitals that were overcrowded.But after the short-term shutdown it got out of hand.
Its purpose was not to stop all cases, which isn’t a
realistic goal. When you do a lockdown as we have
seen all over the world, you do not eliminate the
virus. All you do is delay the infection. Then we’re
testing asymptomatic people who are in the
workforce, and shutting down low risk environments
like schools. When you do that, all you are going to
do is have these cases come later in the winter. And
in the winter you do not have the ability to use social
distance, eat outdoors, etc. We’re locking people
down in their homes, and the most frequent place
where cases are spread are in the home.
Atlas then ran down a potentially tragic list of unintended
consequences
The lockdown was a heinous abuse of government
and misguided policy. 46% of the six most common
cancers were not diagnosed. 85% of living organ
donor transplants were not done. Two-thirds of
cancer screenings were not done. Half of the
650,000 people on chemotherapy did not come in for
chemo. Half of our immunizations didn’t get done.
The United Nations says 1.3 million will die from
starvation because we were shut down and couldn’t
get them food. More than 200,000 cases of child
abuse went unreported. 400,000 more will die from
tuberculosis because of a diversion of those
resources.
When, if ever, have you heard Fauci wrestling with the
tradeoff of coronavirus lockdowns? When, if ever, have you
ever seen him challenged on these grounds?
As we noted at the end of the previous chapter, we should
mourn for all the lives taken by COVID-19. But where is the
mourning for the lives that will be lost from other lethal
maladies, as noted by Atlas? Experts are now also warning of a
looming “mental health pandemic” among our young people. Mental Health America is reporting an astounding 93 percent
increase in anxiety screenings in the past year.
On Oct. 4, 2020, forty-four global experts,
representing some of the leading universities in the world,
came together to issue “The Great Barrington Declaration.” It
reads as follows:
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health
scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging
physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing
COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we
call Focused Protection.Coming from both the left and right, and around the
world, we have devoted our careers to protecting
people. Current lockdown policies are producing
devastating effects on short and long-term public
health. The results (to name a few) include lower
childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular
disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and
deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess
mortality in years to come, with the working class and
younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is
available will cause irreparable damage, with the
underprivileged disproportionately harmed.Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing.
We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is
more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm
than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less
dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.As immunity builds in the population, the risk of
infection to all—including the vulnerable—falls. We
know that all populations will eventually reach herd
immunity—i.e. the point at which the rate of new
infections is stable—and that this can be assisted by
(but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should
therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm
until we reach herd immunity.The most compassionate approach that balances the
risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to
allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live
their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus
through natural infection, while better protecting those
who are at highest risk. We call this Focused
Protection.Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be
the central aim of public health responses to COVID19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff
with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of
other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be
minimized. Retired people living at home should have
groceries and other essentials delivered to their home.
When possible, they should meet family members
outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and
detailed list of measures, including approaches to
multi-generational households, can be implemented,
and is well within the scope and capability of public
health professionals.Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be
allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene
measures, such as hand washing and staying home
when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce
the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities
should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular
activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young
low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from
home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.
Arts, music, sports, and other cultural activities should
resume. People who are more at risk may participate if
they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
Once again, the authors of this book do not even pretend
to be qualified to determine whether or not the experts who
issued this declaration are more precise in their analysis of
COVID-19 than is Fauci. However, we do believe the
American people are constitutionally qualified to benefit from
such a debate. We got brief glimpses of how Fauci behaves
when challenged not once, but twice, by Senator Rand Paul,
who is also a doctor (and who also contracted coronavirus
early on). After participating in numerous debates over the
years, we’ve always viewed the type of defensiveness
displayed by Fauci at even surface-level pushback as being
indicative of a weak argument that lacks substantive answers
for its grandiose claims.
Still, let us not become guilty of the very same magical
thinking and projection we’ve too often seen from Covidstan.
Just because the narrative of those who signed “The Great
Barrington Declaration” is calling for a more preferable way of life than lockdowns doesn’t mean they’re right. But don’t we deserve to know what the truth is, either way?
Furthermore, whatever happened to a skeptical media?
How come the media ignores, disregards, or humiliates anyone
who dares defy Fauci’s view of things?
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.
The post ‘Faucian Bargain’ Does What the Media Failed to Do By Examining the Influence of Anthony Fauci appeared first on The Daily Signal.
0 Commentaires