My Senator ,Rand Paul Slams Fauci In Heated Exchange Over Lockdowns


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) gave quite the earful to a home-bound Dr. Anthony Fauci on Tuesday over the COVID-19 lockdown that has crippled the US economy.

Paul, a medical doctor, noted during the Senate hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, that the mortality rate among children ‘approaches zero’, and that for those aged 18-45 “the mortality in New York was 10 out of 100,000.”

“The history of this when we look back will be wrong prediction after wrong prediction after wrong prediction… As much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end all, I don’t think you’re the one person that gets to make a decision,” said Paul – who added that we need to “observe with an open eye what happened in Sweden, where the kids kept going to school.”

The mortality per capita in Sweden is actually less than France, less than Italy, less than Spain, less than Belgium, less than the Netherlands, about the same as Switzerland. But basically I don’t think there’s anybody arguing that what happened in Sweden is an unacceptable result. I think people are intrigued by it, and we should be.”

“I don’t think any of us are certain when we do all these modelings – there have been more people wrong with modeling than right. We’re opening up a lot of economies around the US, and I hope that people who are predicting doom and gloom and saying ‘oh, we can’t do this, there’s going to be a surge’ – will admit when there isn’t a surge.”

Fauci responded, (25 seconds in below), saying “Sen. Paul, I have never made myself out to be the end-all & only voice of this. I’m a scientist, a physician, and a public health official.”

He then offered a ‘but, the children!’ argument – latching onto Paul’s comment that we don’t know everything about the virus, and that “we really better be very careful, particularly when it comes to children.

Shared from zero hedge


  1. Good. I’m glad someone with a “MD” after their name is taking on these quacks and hacks with their ridiculous models.

    Starting with Ferguson at Imperial College, these model hacks have been so, so, so far off, it has been disgraceful. The press, being populated with morons who couldn’t pass eighth grade math, believed every word of this rank bullshit since the beginning.

    I did a little background on Ferguson by the third week in March and found he had a history of over-estimation of impact by two+ orders of magnitude, and that raised some big red flags for me – which turned out to be his habit again. If Ferguson’s chubby little tart hadn’t gotten caught, driving across London to wax his rod, we might still be having to listen to his bullshite.

    When this is done, what I’m going to be hammering on my congressional delegation is that “experts” with models need to disclose a) their code, b) all assumptions, c) all initial data, to the public, when they make public their projections. Unless they do these things, they should be roundly ignored.

    Ferguson did none of these things. He just spouted “2.2 million deaths” to our political leadership and the CDC, and they lost their shit. Fauci has a LOT to answer for.

    • I agree and further, every statistic used in public policy needs to disclose the range of expected outcomes, not just the one path that the powers that be have determined they will focus on.

    • I will give Ferguson this: He had the courtesy to be ashamed when he realized that he’d done something shameful. I can’t remember the last public figure in the Anglosphere who did that. Maybe Jim McGreevy back in, what, ’08? Checking DuckDuckGo: 2004.

      I have concluded that the reason why the media has such a visceral response when anyone publicly questions their cherished experts: They know absolutely nothing and therefore have to rely on those experts to tell them what to think. I doubt one journalist in 10 could give you a reasonable definition of a model. Telling the bubble headed journalists that their experts don’t know what they are doing is kind of like telling the Aztec who just gave his kid over for human sacrifice that the priests are charlatans: They are just mentally incapable of processing it and will respond with a lot of emotion.

      And here’s the thing: We still know very, very little about this virus. Even right now, it’s quite easy to build a simple model that will get you 2,000,000 dead Americans. We can quibble about 80,000 deaths from Bat Flu, but it’s probably a fair approximation. If Bat Flu is just the flu, bro, and only has .1% infection fatality rate, that means that 80,000,000 Americans have already had it–approximately one quarter. There’s no possible way that 1/4 of Americans have had Bat Flu already.

      If, contrariwise, Bat Flu has a 1% infection fatality rate (a number that seems to me to be well within the realm of reality), and eventually reaches 60% of the US population, that’s pretty much 2 million dead people. (60% is the low end of the numbers that people toss around for “herd immunity.”)

      Now, I’m not saying that this will happen, but it seems to me that it’s still well within the realm of possibility. We’ve taken extreme measures to control the spread of this virus over the last ~6 weeks, and it’s still wiped out as many people as a very bad flu season in just three short months, on top of the flu season we already had.

      Now, aside from the specifics of the models, you are 100% correct that the models should be extremely transparent, right down to the code and the raw data. It should probably be best practice for models to include some sort of simplified model that people can play with to toy with the unknown variables and see what happens to the model. (This is what I’ve done for Bat Flu in a couple of spreadsheets that I’m running.) And the model builders should be very clear what the range of reasonable outcomes are based on the models, not just the one headline number.

      Parallels between Bat Flu models and global warming models are apropos. Even models that people are betting a lot of money on sometimes have issues (see: mortgage default models, circa 2006).

  2. I forget where I heard this but…

    “Statistics are like people: torture them enough and they’ll tell you anything.”

    I think we have bad models and bad data.

    • That is, in large part, true.

      One of the scandals percolating beneath the surface of headlines in peer-reviewed journals is the scandal of statistical thimblerigging. We have “p hacking,” selective grooming of datasets and outright manufacturing of data – all of these have been found in peer-reviewed papers in the last 10 years, and the trend isn’t getting any better. The worst places to find this stuff are in psychology papers (and this has been true for years), and medication efficacy testing.

      In other words, the statistics are indeed being tortured in the service of getting published.

  3. As long as I’m on a rant about “science” and “scientists,” allow me to show y’all what happens when a scientist is busted and forced to retract a paper:

    Notice how citations live on for a long time. Notice how citations can actually go UP after a paper is retracted?

    Yea, this is why I don’t trust scientists. There is no mechanism to enforce integrity in science. It’s all a “publish or perish” sham.

    People like Fauci will never be held to account for his epic immolation of multiple trillions of dollars of money we didn’t have – and which will affect the economic future of millions of younger people, possibly for the rest of their lives.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here