00:02:07.920Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about this.
00:02:09.600But these authors have been featured on episodes of The Daily, on an entire segment on PBS NewsHour.
00:02:16.680They are being featured in all kinds of like mainstream respectable media.
00:02:20.560And the message of this book is providing like a backbone for this wave of COVID revisionism that has the costume of something that is like a serious reflection on the mistakes that we made during COVID.
00:02:33.260But it's actually just like right wing agitprop.
00:02:35.280I'm glad we're doing this just because I have noticed anecdotally the proliferation of arguments about COVID that are basically arguments that like we did too much.
00:04:51.800I already hate these guys so fucking much.0.99
00:04:54.120This is why I can't stop skeeting about this.1.00
00:04:56.020This is why every fucking thing I've done on the internet for like three weeks, it's like, fuck these people.0.99
00:05:00.420To many on the left, the willingness to listen fair-mindedly to those on the right is a luxury we can no longer afford.0.99
00:05:06.220Not while Donald Trump occupied the White House and not so long as the Republican Party remains in thrall to election deniers, climate change skeptics, and people who deny structural racism.
00:05:17.060The partisan mindset has lumped reasonable questions in with irresponsible claims because both are associated with the same source, the opposing party.
00:05:25.060This is a prescription for failures of critical thinking.
00:05:27.860Under COVID, there were heavy consequences.
00:05:30.220okay so this is the same argument we saw when we were talking about the lab leak in our bonus
00:05:36.540episode now made free to all listeners because we're philanthropists where basically the idea
00:05:41.800is we we we got too oppositional yeah anything coming out of the right was rejected offhand
00:05:47.780even though some of it was correct although it's interesting that he's like you know we weren't
00:05:51.880listening to them because they're election deniers it's like well rfk doesn't even believe in0.99
00:05:57.500fucking germ theory. Right. They're not thinking through the consequences of what they're saying0.99
00:06:01.560right there. They're not saying, oh, they're actually not climate change deniers. You may
00:06:04.240think they are, but they actually aren't. Right. No, they're just accepting they are climate change
00:06:07.620deniers. They did try to overturn a free and fair election. They're just accepting all that. But
00:06:11.800they're like, oh, but you're being too mean to them. I guess there's like a theoretical argument
00:06:15.080here that's understandable, where it's like not every single thing that comes out of right wing
00:06:20.020circles is necessarily wrong. Sure. The thing is that I don't think that is the source of the
00:06:27.320left positions on covid right it's just not i mean we're mostly going to skip it because it's
00:06:31.480so boring peter and we've read it a million times but at least like a third of this book
00:06:35.120is dedicated to like criticism of dissidents was unfair people were too mean and then every single
00:06:41.180dissident is somebody who said like oh covid will only kill like 10 000 people it's basically the0.99
00:06:45.100flu yeah idiots that's the thing it's like we're fucking wrong when these people were running their0.99
00:06:50.020mouth in early covid like you know elon musk being like i think the numbers will stop here1.00
00:06:54.640right just talking out of his ass yes and a bunch of people are like you don't know what you're0.94
00:06:59.040talking about yeah those people were correct they're yeah exactly it's like sorry what what0.99
00:07:03.300do you think that we as a society should do with people who lie constantly and are proven to be
00:07:09.220wrong right you don't think we should marginalize those people i'm sorry what what is your understanding
00:07:13.220of like what a society is like what is merit yeah like you're trying to you're trying to explain
00:07:17.780this to like a child like if you're good you should get rewards and if you're bad you should
00:07:22.480get punishments. Like, this is a really fundamental aspect of human community. And they're just like,
00:07:27.560oh, no, no, no. Let's ignore the fact that they were wrong. Other people were mean to them. Well,
00:07:32.020they were wrong in a way that would have killed literally tens to hundreds of thousands of people.
00:07:36.020And like, is it really okay that the Secretary of Health and Human Services eats roadkill?
00:07:42.380Is that really okay? Yeah, exactly. Well, this is the outcome that this argument produces,
00:07:48.020is fucking RFK Jr. in office. So for this episode, we're going to just talk about the0.98
00:07:54.220pandemic chronologically. So this roughly follows the format of the book, but there's kind of
00:07:59.220discrete phases of the pandemic. And so the first phase we're going to talk about is like pre-pandemic.
00:08:05.180What did science know about non-pharmaceutical interventions before the pandemic started?
00:08:10.660So here is a clip of them talking about the state of the science before the pandemic.
00:08:15.720Frances, one of the things that was a real revelation to me was how you document in the book that prior to COVID, that there was a good deal of analysis done about what happens if a respiratory virus does emerge.
00:08:30.640And the consensus or some version of a consensus was that lockdowns are not that effective and that they would cost society enormously.
00:08:39.800Yes, there had been a tremendous amount of work planning for what to do when the next pandemic arrived.
00:08:47.180And we took measures in the early going of the pandemic that were at odds with the recommendations.
00:08:53.700They had been recommended against in some cases.
00:08:56.500There was a World Health Organization report from November 2019 that looked at what was known about all the proposed non-pharmaceutical interventions.
00:09:06.300This is masks, shutdowns, isolation, testing, tracing, etc.
00:09:12.900Looked at what was known about the effectiveness of each of those measures.
00:09:17.300And across the board, the report states that the evidence base for the effectiveness of each of them was poor.
00:09:23.640And so it's so striking that you get six months later and those measures are being employed all around the world with policymakers saying that they're following the science.
00:09:34.080And of course, it's quite obvious that all of those measures have tremendous costs.
00:09:38.940So as policymakers are weighing their alternatives, there's uncertain benefits, but certain costs.
00:09:46.960But I know a report that came out before we knew exactly how COVID spread.
00:09:53.200A report that was not about COVID because COVID didn't exist yet.
00:09:57.420So basically, the argument they're making here is that before the pandemic, everyone in public health kind of knew that things like mask mandates, lockdowns, travel restrictions, they knew that these things didn't work.
00:10:08.460They had no real evidence that they worked.
00:10:10.500And yet, as soon as we get to 2020, all these public health officials are saying, oh, we should all we should do these lockdowns.
00:10:18.160Most of their chapter in the book covers this WHO document from November of 2019.
00:10:22.560They're basically going through and saying, OK, what is the evidence for masks?
00:10:25.920What is the evidence for stay at home orders? Right. Yeah. And so the first thing to know about the WHO document, as we mentioned, this is about the flu. This is not about COVID. As of 2020, the fatality rate of COVID was about seven times higher than the flu. So it's talking about something that was less severe in basically every way we know how to measure that. And so the recommendations kind of follow from that.
00:10:47.620The second thing that you need to know about the WHO report is that it has all these recommendations
00:10:53.240of like, yes, you should do this, no, you should do that. And the authors of In COVID's Wake
00:10:56.920make big hay about the fact that like certain things like contact tracing, the WHO says it's
00:11:02.000like not recommended in any circumstance. But all of these recommendations in the WHO report
00:11:07.340are provisional. So for border closures, it says, border closure is generally not recommended
00:11:13.280unless required by national law in extraordinary circumstances during a severe pandemic.
00:12:01.740like everybody knew that like masks and lockdowns don't work before the pandemic.
00:12:05.280The main thing to know about this document is that
00:12:08.240the document is using what's called the grade standard. This is a kind of objective measure
00:12:13.960of how high quality is research. And the grade standard is based on this principle that like
00:12:19.040you want a standard of research across every single field to say what is high quality,
00:12:24.300medium quality, and low quality research. So the kind of gold standard is like a double blind,
00:12:29.440placebo controlled, randomized control trial. And then at the bottom is just like a case report.
00:12:34.460Like there's one patient and we tried this thing and then he got better. That's the lowest quality
00:12:38.180right? The lowest certainty. But the thing about using these grade standards is that many, many
00:12:44.580interventions cannot be studied in a randomized control trial. So in this WHO document, they go
00:12:50.560through categories of various different interventions that you can do to prevent a respiratory
00:12:54.400pandemic. And one of them is a respiratory etiquette. So this is like covering your mouth
00:12:59.400when coughing. The authors of In COVID's Wake make a lot of hay of the fact that like, oh,
00:13:04.000there's no evidence for this and yet they recommended it. But in the actual WHO paper,
00:13:10.560they say the quality of evidence could not be judged because no study was identified.
00:13:15.480You cannot do a study where you tell a thousand people to cover their mouth when they sneeze
00:13:20.200and another one where you tell them not to cover their mouth when they sneeze because people0.99
00:13:23.920already fucking do that. It's like a thing in society that we already practice. It's basically0.96
00:13:28.920already just background public health guidance. You wouldn't get high compliance if you told
00:13:33.180people just, oh, cough in other people's faces. We also know enough about the spread of illnesses
00:13:37.440that it's really irresponsible if you have the flu to go around doing that, even if it's for
00:13:42.220a study. So there is quote unquote no evidence that covering your mouth when you cough works
00:13:47.540to prevent a pandemic, but that's because you can't gather evidence on it. It's not the kind
00:13:51.240of thing you can do a study on. I'm going to go down to Princeton and cough in these
00:13:54.240motherfuckers' faces. Don't worry, Francis, there's no evidence. The other one that drives1.00
00:13:58.860me fucking crazy, is in this paper, they also talk about isolation. So basically, when you're0.87
00:14:03.280sick, you should stay home. And they say the quality of evidence for this intervention is
00:14:08.820very low. The In COVID's Wake authors are saying, oh, they're admitting that there's low quality
00:14:13.840evidence. But again, you cannot tell people if you have the flu, oh yeah, go about your business.
00:14:19.640You can't do a randomized controlled trial on this. It would be wildly unethical and the
00:14:24.480compliance would be really low. So low quality evidence in this case basically just means it
00:14:29.740hasn't been meaningfully studied. You can't do a study on it. Or at least at that granular of a
00:14:34.780level, right? Because we do understand that proximity to other people impacts the spread
00:14:40.720of infectious disease. That's not exactly contested. This is actually exactly what they
00:14:45.500say about mask mandates. So here is their summary from the book where they're talking about face
00:14:51.360masks the assessment also stated that in severe epidemics or pandemics face masks worn by
00:14:56.880asymptomatic people are conditionally recommended to reduce transmission despite there being quote
00:15:02.280no evidence that the use of face masks is effective there is nevertheless quote mechanistic
00:15:07.920plausibility right which which means what we're saying which is yes there's no specific study on
00:15:13.900this because of the difficulty of conducting that exact study but like we understand the mechanism
00:15:18.920Right. Therefore, we basically know that this works.
00:15:21.760And also the incredible thing about this is that there is actually quite a bit of evidence.
00:15:25.980There's a number of randomized controlled trials that have been done with masks.
00:15:29.900One of them, they take kids in college dorms.
00:15:32.300In one dorm, they're like, OK, wear a mask all winter.
00:15:34.600And in the other dorm, they're like, oh, don't wear a mask.
00:15:36.360And then at the end, you see how many kids got common cold, flu, et cetera, at the end of that period.
00:15:40.840And they do actually find that people who wore masks are much less likely to get sick.
00:15:45.040The problem is that study was done on wearing masks and handwashing.
00:15:50.000So the reason you can't say with 100 percent certainty that masks work is because there's two interventions being done at the same time and you haven't isolated just masks.
00:15:59.500So, again, this is science being responsible.
00:16:18.140Like, it's just not your fucking field.0.96
00:16:19.500How are you how are you doing a two author book coming out of Princeton and neither of you are like, should we tap someone from our prestigious university who does work on infectious disease?0.99
00:30:21.840Most of the population was at very low risk.0.59
00:30:24.480It was the very old, sick, and frail who were at serious risk.
00:30:27.940Preventative measures could be concentrated on the vulnerable.
00:30:30.920People could be relied upon to change their behavior voluntarily, and that would make a significant difference.
00:30:35.560In short, Swedish health authorities viewed COVID as the equivalent of a severe flu, which could not be contained but only slowed and which would inevitably run its course.
00:30:46.280The thing about running its course is that like we sort of know that that's not true, nor is that like really how the flu works, but whatever.0.97
00:30:54.020The authors of this book, as usual, with these like bold heterodox thinker books, is like they're too chicken shit to make their actual argument.0.95
00:31:01.240They're basically arguing for herd immunity.0.96
00:31:03.020Like all of these like the dissenters were criticized.
00:31:04.620it's all people who were pushing for herd immunity.
00:31:07.560But like we now know scientifically, like without a doubt,
00:32:32.060This book is not a mystery novel, so at the risk of spoiling the surprise, at the end of June 2021, Sweden's excess morbidity for the period from January 2020 to the end of June 2021 was negative 2.3%.
00:32:44.960That is, the country had overall no excess mortality, but rather less mortality than would be predicted based on previous year's figures.
00:32:52.460This was also true of seven of the best-performing European countries, which included Sweden's Nordic neighbors.
00:32:59.060So first of all, this narrative is roughly correct that the Swedish lockdown experience in March and April of 2020 was a lot lighter than other countries.
00:33:08.680The thing that really set Sweden apart during this period is that they issued a ton of guidance, but nothing was mandatory.
00:33:15.340They did close schools for kids over 17, but for younger kids, they never closed schools.
00:33:20.140on March 18th, they told employers to let employees work from home. They're like,
00:33:25.760we think you should do this. And they also told restaurants to like avoid overcrowding,
00:33:30.380like only let in a certain number of people at a time. They told Swedes not to travel within
00:33:35.140the country on March 18th. So they were telling people to do a lot of the things that other
00:33:39.660countries were doing, but none of this was mandatory. So it was basically just like,
00:33:42.840we think that you should do this. So that is really something that is very different about
00:33:47.360Sweden. The main thing to know about Sweden's approach during this period was that it was an
00:33:53.700abject failure. So in March and April of 2020, Sweden had the highest mortality rate in the
00:34:00.200world from COVID as a percentage of their population. Their death rate was five times
00:34:05.100higher than Denmark's, nine times higher than Finland's, and 11 and a half times higher than
00:34:10.140Norway. It was also, this is really bleak, this is from one of the articles I read, it was also
00:34:13.98025% higher than the USA. It's like they're like 12 times worse than Norway and like a little
00:34:20.740worse than America. If you had put Cuomo in charge of one major city in Sweden, he would have wiped
00:34:26.040those motherfuckers out. So what's wild about this whole kind of like recasting of Sweden's0.99
00:34:31.400approach as like secretly successful is like Sweden itself set up a COVID commission and they
00:34:37.060issued a report that says that this was a failure. So it says pandemic measures were too few and too
00:34:43.340late and the commission concluded that these should have been more extensive, particularly
00:34:47.060during the first wave and considering the limited knowledge about COVID-19. And so things like
00:34:52.360keeping businesses open, keeping public transit open, keeping schools open, resulted in a ton
00:34:57.700of COVID spreading around the community, which eventually did get to older people. Like that is
00:35:02.100one of the reasons why the death rate was so high. It says the high number of deaths among older
00:35:07.780people in Sweden, especially during the first wave, was probably due to high overall viral
00:35:12.140transmission in society. So even Sweden realized that this approach was a mistake. And so in June
00:35:18.100of 2020, Sweden basically updated its approach. So this is an excerpt from an article called
00:35:24.060How Sweden Approached the COVID-19 Pandemic. It says, during the second and third waves,
00:35:29.140the government and its agencies launched several new and robust measures which they had previously
00:35:32.980rejected or refrained from using to reduce the transmission of the virus. These included
00:35:36.900restrictions in restaurants and commercial areas, household quarantine if a family member had COVID-19
00:35:41.600and wearing face masks on public transit during rush hour.
00:35:44.380The changes between the first and second waves were not based on any new knowledge.
00:35:48.120Some measures in late autumn 2020 were initiated by the government rather than requested by
00:35:58.220So basically, after June of 2020, the practices among the Swedish population and the policies
00:36:04.140of the Swedish government were not all that different from European countries.
00:36:07.560The only period when Sweden's policies differed very significantly from other countries was the period when they had the highest death rate in the world.
00:36:18.740Now, what I am what I don't understand is why these other countries had lockdowns at all without the evil mastermind Anthony Fauci, without him puppeteering at all.
00:36:30.220So Anders Tegnell, the head of the public health agency, he writes a book.
00:36:33.780Earlier this year, he gives an interview.
00:36:35.700He says, the misconception is that Swedes haven't changed their lives because they really have.
00:37:46.840OK, what are we really talking about here then?1.00
00:37:49.200See, now we're no longer talking about something that political science professors are too stupid to understand.1.00
00:37:55.140And now we're talking about something that's so stupid that only a political science professor could think that it's important.0.99
00:38:00.700So then we have to talk about their weird thing where they say that Sweden had less mortality than the previous year.0.88
00:38:09.900So again, the book says Sweden's excess mortality for the period from January 2020 to the end of June 2021 was negative 2.3%.
00:38:17.880That is, the country had no overall excess mortality, but rather less mortality than would have been predicted based on previous year's figures.
00:38:25.760This was also true of seven of the best performing European countries, which included Sweden's Nordic neighbors.
00:38:31.340And so their footnote for this leads to a book called The Herd by a Swedish journalist named Johan Norberg,
00:38:38.500who kind of bafflingly is citing a study from the UK Office of National Statistics,
00:38:43.820which during the pandemic would release these periodic reports of like, what is excess death
00:38:48.220doing around the world kind of as these numbers became available? And it is true that Sweden has
00:38:53.800a excess mortality at that time in June of 2021 overall of negative 2.3%. That part is true.1.00
00:39:00.400However, if you actually go to the citation, Sweden has the worst excess mortality of any
00:39:05.100Nordic country. So it's negative 2.3% in Sweden. It's negative 7.9% in Finland, negative 8.3% in
00:39:12.560Denmark and negative 12% in Norway. So I have no idea what is going on with these numbers. I have
00:39:18.780not seen these numbers in other places. I think it's something with the ONS's specific methodology
00:39:23.480on calculating excess deaths. But even in their own source, Sweden is doing the worst out of any
00:39:30.780Nordic country. My initial instinct would have been that you would see fewer excess deaths in
00:39:36.640other regards, like things like car accidents are going to plummet, right? Yeah, that's most of the
00:39:40.640explanation other types of diseases are gonna are gonna plummet yeah flu flu basically disappeared
00:39:44.640for like two winters yeah they're just latching on to a stray statistic it's also just so bizarre
00:39:50.900to cite a book which is citing a uk report which he doesn't even link to in the footnotes of that
00:39:57.580book i'd like go truffle hunting for it when there are dozens of studies on this like the the world
00:40:04.780of academia and epidemiology are very interested in outcomes in Sweden. And so if you look up
00:40:11.120numbers from Statistics Sweden, which is exactly what it sounds like, Sweden had around 7,000
00:40:18.100excess deaths in 2020, around 1,000 excess deaths in 2021, and around 4,000 excess deaths in 2022.
00:40:25.560It is not the case that excess deaths overall went down during the pandemic. It's an utterly
00:40:31.020bizarre hill to die on. It just isn't true. And I have no idea what's going on with this ONS
00:40:36.960study. Told you what's going on. Political scientists run wild. Look, these guys can't
00:40:41.900even figure out why Trump won. You think they can figure out fucking COVID? No, go, go analyze some0.99
00:40:48.560polls, bitch. So just slightly steel man their argument, because this is an argument that goes1.00
00:40:52.480around a lot, is that if you look at the entire duration of the pandemic, Sweden is not actually
00:40:56.500that much worse than the other Nordic countries. And that's actually true. So if you look at the0.51
00:41:00.360four Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway. Sweden is like in the middle of the pack
00:41:04.860if you look at all of 2020, 2021, and 2022. However, this kind of ignores like, I think,
00:41:11.380important nuance. So even though it's like it looks less bad, if you look at the entire course
00:41:15.600of the pandemic, Sweden still has 36% higher death rate than Denmark. Like that does matter.0.99
00:41:21.520Yeah. The real outlier in Scandinavia is Finland. Finland had 190 deaths per 100,000. Sweden had 117.
00:41:27.500So Finland did way worse than Sweden overall, if you look at the full course of the pandemic.
00:41:31.300However, Finland apparently really fucked up their vaccine rollout and they had a really
00:48:58.260After the stay-at-home orders came down, we saw a reduction in cases.
00:49:01.900That doesn't necessarily mean that it is causal and people may have locked down anyway.
00:49:06.800There's some evidence that people were starting to stay home and avoid bars and restaurants, et cetera, before the mandatory stay-at-home orders came down.
00:49:14.100The problem with that is that a lot of other measures had happened before we had stay-at-home orders, right?
00:49:19.720A lot of states had already closed schools.
00:49:22.300A lot of employers had already told people to work from home.
00:49:24.480Trump had already issued that guidance that was basically please stay home and people weren't doing it.
00:49:29.240And so in analyses of this period that look at all of the different interventions and what was the most effective, they find that stay-at-home orders were the most effective because like you couldn't go out and do things, right?
00:49:41.140You can't rely on the population to just like voluntarily not leave the house for weeks on end.
00:49:46.480I mean, we knew, we were aware that COVID was spreading in other parts of the world in like January, February, right?
00:49:54.020Yeah. And, you know, I don't think that that is like when we should have locked down. But had we, it would have worked.
00:50:01.780Well, yeah. Right. It would it would have been very effective.
00:50:04.260I mean, this this does kind of get back to the the failures of this period, the actual failures for this.
00:50:10.420I also read The Plague Year by Lawrence Wright, which is really interesting and is basically exactly what it sounds like.
00:50:15.580It's just like, OK, what happened in 2020? And, you know, one of the core arguments of this book is that, you know, all we looked at was public health indicators.
00:53:37.800The actual failures were from the fucking deranged weirdo we had running the government at the time.0.98
00:53:42.660And not to mention, like, Trump's running interference against the public health officials, right?0.97
00:53:48.180So, like, in this book, complaining about how public health officials have too much power might be worth noting that the president of the United States was undermining them in various material respects.
00:53:59.240Look, he's just the person running the country.
00:54:01.160We're not going to spend any time on this guy.
00:54:02.600I don't know where the causation is going.1.00
00:54:04.700Are these people dumb or does taking these positions rot the brain?1.00
00:54:29.880But for now, we're going to close with a excerpt from their conclusion.
00:54:35.260A fundamental error of COVID policy was to accord too much power to public health experts with a predictably narrow set of professional concerns and expertise, as well as perspectives shaped by comfortable upper middle class material conditions.
00:54:47.820There's a real lack of software that's going on here.
00:54:49.600I'm at Princeton. I'm really against these eggheads, these elite eggheads.
00:54:52.600Slogans like follow the science turned complex, practical and moral choices among policy alternatives into simplistic attempts to predict effects on a narrow range of outcomes.
00:55:01.180Public deliberation was severely hampered by the unwillingness of many political leaders, journalists and academics to ask and demand answers to hard questions involving difficult tradeoffs.
00:55:11.000The problem of elites hubristically deciding that they know better than everyone else is as old as democracy.0.86
00:55:16.420what were we supposed to fucking vote on mask mandates or something like what national referendum0.96
00:55:23.020what are you fucking talking about and by the way it would have won also it's not hubris for0.98
00:55:27.240experts to give their expertise that's not it's like i know about nuclear physics therefore i can0.99
00:55:32.320tell you about nuclear physics that's not hubris that's like basic fucking human functioning also0.81
00:55:36.580sorry but these these people were put into place by elect democratically elected officials right0.97
00:55:42.540the idea that this was like done by a fucking cabal of experts who by the way by the way what0.96
00:55:50.140do we fucking have these people for if not to give us a little bit of guidance during this once in a0.98
00:55:56.860century event right it comes and they're like you should wear masks and uh stay away from each other0.98
00:56:02.320to the best of your ability and these people are like this is the hubris of these experts what are0.72
00:56:06.920you fucking talking about wait wait wait wait wait i just heard i just remembered something0.80
00:56:10.080hang on but i actually want you to end with okay so this is this is what they're recommending0.99
00:56:14.020instead of what we actually did in 2020 what was most needed was critical thinking as health
00:56:20.300ethicist ari joff puts it an effortful pause the uk's official covet inquiry has recommended that
00:56:28.860in future crises there be both red teams groups of dissenting non-experts trained in critical0.97
00:56:34.680thinking as well as far wider range of expertise brought to bear yeah yeah what about the dumb0.99
00:56:41.480asses we haven't heard from dumb asses i love the idea of having a group of dissenters don't so like0.99
00:56:47.160you can't have them prepared in advance because you don't know what they're dissenting against0.99
00:56:50.080right so you basically get a bunch of experts together and then no matter what they conclude
00:56:56.200you pull together a bunch of people who disagree whose disagreement is a qualification that's the
00:57:01.320only qualification no there's two qualifications the other qualification is that they are not
00:57:05.600experts also i love trained in critical thinking yeah i've been honing my mind yeah my generally
00:57:13.620we have a debate between a public health expert and 50 sam harris's just you know i can logic my
00:57:18.520way through this anthony fauci that was an interesting presentation what is uh the least
00:57:23.740famous political science professor at princeton have to say about this