Credit: NIAID Flickr by CC BY 2.0

Bad news: Fauci asked to explain Texas figures and….. can’t do it.

An extraordinary video here, and one which really puts into context the difficulty which lockdown proponents are having in explaining the success of Texas, and Mississippi, two US states which abandoned lockdown over forty days ago, and are seeing some of the lowest Covid case totals in the US, and indeed, in the western world, right now.

US Congressman Jim Jordan had the chance to ask the US Government’s head honcho on Covid, Anthony Fauci, about this phenomenon yesterday. Watch the exchange, then read on:

Congressman Jordan’s question is straightforward enough: How does Fauci explain the fact that two states with no lockdowns and facemask mandates are doing so well compared to states with lockdowns, and mask mandates, especially when Fauci himself was amongst those warning that the Texas and Mississippi decisions would lead to disaster?

And Fauci’s answer is…. astonishingly weak.

What he says here is that it’s possible that in the states with lockdown, people simply are not obeying the restrictions, leading to higher cases.

But that’s no answer at all, is it?

For one thing, it doesn’t explain Texas and Mississippi, at all. Because there are no restrictions in those states for people to disobey, you might assume that people in those states are doing, perfectly legally, what the people in the lockdown states are (according to Fauci) doing illegally: Meeting and mingling and behaving as if there is no lockdown.

His answer is essentially that people are behaving the same elsewhere. But that isn’t an answer: It just poses a bigger question. If behaviour is the same everywhere, what’s the point of the lockdowns?

After all, by that assessment, they’re not working, and the cases are rising, and states without them are doing better. So what’s the point of them?

The only possible answer – and this is a real stretch, but we try to be fair – is that the absence of lockdown in Texas and Mississippi is actually having the reverse effect on behaviour compared to the presence of lockdown in other places. In other words, people, knowing that the state’s laws aren’t there to protect them, are behaving more cautiously about the virus by themselves.

But that, again, wouldn’t be an argument for lockdown. If that were true, then it would actually be an admission that lockdowns are counter-productive and encourage risky behaviour.

The bottom line here is that Fauci is asked a simple question, and can’t produce an answer which makes any sense.

And that’s very revealing. Here’s what he said, remember, back in March, when these two states decided to go their own way:

Withdrawing mask mandates “is really quite risky,” Fauci, the president’s chief medical advisor, said during a virtual town hall held by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union on Wednesday.

Fauci said that while the seven-day average of new infections in the two states slowed over the past few weeks, they have more recently plateaued.

“That’s a dangerous sign because when that has happened in the past, when you pull back on measures of public health, invariably you’ve seen a surge back up,” Fauci said.

That’s not quite a prediction, in his defence, but it’s just about stopping short of one. It was very clearly his view, when these States re-opened, that they were likely to see a surge.

But that hasn’t happened, and he doesn’t really seem to know why. Texas and Mississippi have the experts scratching their heads.

Except of course in Ireland, where there’s no danger of any politician asking an expert questions about them.

Share mdi-share-variant mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-printer mdi-chevron-left Prev Next mdi-chevron-right Related
Comments are open

Do you agree with Senator Keogan that people on long-term unemployment benefit should have to do community service for the money?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...