Posts published in May 2020

Why Do Some People Embrace Mask Wearing to Stop the Coronavirus?

Why Do Some People Embrace Mask Wearing to Stop the Coronavirus?

By John R Guardiano on May 31, 2020

Hint: it has nothing to do with science and reason and everything to do with politics and feelings.

I noted here at ResCon1 that there is no compelling scientific evidence that wearing a mask stops the spread of the coronavirus.

And in fact, masks can be positively counterproductive because they give people a false sense of security, “thereby leading them to take fewer precautionary measures that actually do help stop or prevent the virus’s spread.”

Yet, masks are all the rage, with some states, like Virginia, now requiring that masks be worn in all public places, including restaurants and retail stores. Why is this?

Again, it has nothing to do with science because the science is clear: As Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) emergencies program explained at a media briefing in March:

There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.

According to the WHO today, “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.”

Association. Still, some people have argued that because masks are commonplace in certain countries or jurisdictions that have done a relatively good job of containing the spread of the coronavirus, masks must, therefore, be effective. But this is silly. Association, obviously, is not causation.

In these same places where masks are commonplace and the coronavirus is relatively contained, people may eat healthy and hearty breakfasts and refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages. Does this mean that healthy and hearty breakfasts and the absence of alcoholic beverages stop the spread of the coronavirus and thus should be mandatory?

In truth, there are too many other potential explanatory factors at work to explain why some countries and regions have been better able to avert or avoid the coronavirus.

Mask wearing populations may be more fastidious and disciplined about social distancing, which is effective at stopping the spread of the coronavirus. Or they may suffer fewer medical complications and co-morbidities. Maybe they’re a younger demographic.

This matters because the victims of COVID-19 are overwhelmingly the elderly and those with with underlying medical ailments and chronic diseases.

Feelings. But despite the utter lack of scientific and empirical evidence to support mask wearing, masks have a cult-like following, and for several reasons, I think.

First, there is the understandable belief that they might do some good and, therefore, are worth the annoyance and imposition.

A member of my own family expressed this sentiment well. “If stuck in a room for 12 hours with a person who has COVID-19,” he writes, “wouldn’t you feel better if that person had a mask on?”

That’s a fair and legitimate question, and I suppose the answer is: Yes, I would. But our feelings can be deceptive. They can give rise to a false sense of hope.

That’s why public policy should not be based on feelings. Public policy should be based on facts, logic and empirical evidence.

Masks are like chicken soup. They may make us feel better; but neither a mask nor chicken soup is effective at stopping or combating a virus.

If your sore throat feels better by eating chicken soup, then by all means do so. But please don’t think that chicken soup will heal your sore throat or free you of a viral infection, because it won’t.

By the same token, if wearing a mask makes you feel better or safer—or if it gives you the sense that you’re doing something helpful in this pandemic—then by all means, wear a mask. But please don’t think that your mask will do anything to stop the spread of the coronavirus, because it won’t.

Symbolism. Another reason public health officials push masks is because they see them as a powerful symbol to remind people that we are still in a pandemic and thus need to be extra careful.

In this view, it really doesn’t matter whether the mask actually stops the spread of the coronavirus. What matters is that it gives people pause, causes them to think, and induces them to act appropriately.

This is the position of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Back in March, Fauci admitted that people should not be wearing a mask.

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” Fauci told 60 Minutes.

When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and might even block a droplet. But it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is.

And often, there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.

Fauci has since changed his position and says he now thinks people should wear a mask. However, his reason or rationale for changing his position is telling. It’s not that the science behind wearing a mask has changed, because it hasn’t.

Instead, Fauci says, the masks are a powerful “symbol” to prod people to do the kinds of things that they should be doing—mainly social distancing—that will protect people and the public health.

Politics. Some people, moreover, are smitten with masks because they view masks as public rebuke to President Trump, who has declined to wear a mask.

Worse yet, in the view of these anti-Trump political partisans, the president even castigated one reporter for trying to be “politically correct” when that reporter refused to remove his mask while asking Trump a question in the White House rose garden.

In this view, wearing a mask is a way to thumb your nose at Trump.

This, in fact, is why Biden has conspicuously taken to wearing a mask: It’s a way for him to identify with and bond with his left-wing supporters. And forcing all Americans to wear a mask is a way to isolate Trump and have the citizenry en mass thumb them their collective noses at him.

“What could be more delicious!” think Biden’s “progressive” partisans.

A similar and sometimes overlapping group of anti-Trump “progressives,” meanwhile, supports mandatory mask wearing as a means of keeping the citizenry fearful and the country in lockdown.

These “progressives” understand that when Americans are fearful and America is in crisis, it is much easier to impose sweeping statist measures that will “fundamentally transform” America along socialist and redistributionist lines.

Indeed, for the left, the mask is a convenient political tool that will help them to impose their statist agenda on an otherwise resistant citizenry.

The bottom line: there are several reasons, ranging from the benign to the malevolent, that people support mandatory mask wearing despite the lack of scientific evidence that masks stop the spread of the coronavirus.

But regardless of the reason or rationale, the groupthink that now dominates our politics, our media, and our culture—to wit: that wearing a mask is a self-evident good that will protect us and the public health—is counterproductive and untrue.

And no matter what you think, we all should agree: truth, science and reason should trump feelings, sentiment and wishful thinking.

Feature photo credit: New York Post.

Social Distancing, Yes; Mask Wearing, No.

Social Distancing, Yes; Mask Wearing, No.

By John R Guardiano on May 25, 2020

“The debate over whether Americans should wear face masks to control coronavirus transmission has been settled,” declares the New York Times‘ Knvul Sheikh. “Governments and businesses now require or at least recommend them in many public settings.”

Sheikh is right about the requirement or recommendation to wear masks in many public settings, but wrong about how the debate has been settled.

In truth, the masks do little or nothing to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and actually cause real harm: by giving some people a false sense of security, thereby leading them to take fewer precautionary measures that actually do help stop or prevent the virus’s spread.

Social distancing, for instance, makes good public health sense. Yet, how many times have we seen people donned up in full mask-covering mode standing just inches away from a friend or colleague who is talking, gesticulating, or jointly texting on their phone?

I’ve seen this image many times. These people no doubt think they’re safe and doing the right thing because they are wearing a mask, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The mask, of course, does not protect the mask wearer. Instead, the mask theoretically protects other people from being the infected by the mask wearer if the mask wearer is an unknown or asymptomatic carrier of the coronavirus.

(A known or symptomatic carrier of the coronavirus would presumably be self-quarantined and not out and about in a public setting.)

I say theoretically because the logic or rationale behind the requirement to wear a mask depends on dubious assumptions that don’t stand up to practical, everyday scrutiny.

Makeshift Cloth Masks. First, the studies and analyses that say masks can prevent the spread of the coronavirus involve surgical masks. But most people aren’t wearing surgical masks. Instead, they’re wearing makeshift cloth masks, which are inherently subpar and leaky.

“Fabric masks also allow air in around the sides, but lack non-woven, moisture-repelling layers. They impede only about two percent of airflow in,” said May Chu, a clinical professor in epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health in an interview with LIveScience.

N95 surgical masks, reports Live Science, “effectively prevent viral spread [by filtering] out 95 percent of particles .03 microns or larger.”

However, because N95 surgical masks are in short supply, even for the medical professionals who most need them, and because they are difficult to properly wear or fit, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “does not recommend them for general use.”

As for airflow outward through a mask, whether surgical or nonsurgical, studies report marginal benefits at best.

“The evidence for the efficacy of surgical or homemade masks is limited, and masks aren’t the most important protection against the coronavirus,” LiveScience notes.

“To me, it’s not harmful to wear these masks, but it doesn’t look from this study, [April 3, 2020, in the journal Nature Medicine], like there is a whole lot of benefit,” said Rachel Jones, an associative professor of family and preventative medicine at the University of Utah…

The recommendations that everyone wear masks are because “any kind of impediment is better than nothing,” Chu said. But fabric masks are not expected to be as protective as surgical masks, she said…

“There’s been enough research done to be able to confidently say that masks wouldn’t be able to stop the spread of infection, that they would only have a small effect on transmission,” added Ben Cowling, head of the Divison of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Hong Kong University.

“We shouldn’t be relying on masks to help us get back to normal.”

“Another April study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine,” writes Mark Siegel, a clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, “revealed that the force of sick patients’ coughs propelled droplets through both surgical masks as well as cloth masks.”

The CDC,” Siegel explains,

based its revised mask recommendation on studies that found asymptomatic spread was far more common than had been thought. But there have been no studies on masks’ effectiveness in preventing it [emphasis added].

Although the coronavirus is highly contagious, it is much less so than, say, measles, which can linger in the air for two hours after a cough. a sneeze or even speech.

By contrast, the Covid-19 virus has not been proved to be aerosolized. Coronaviruses often enter the body through the eyes, and frequent hand and face washing and social distancing is much more effective than masks at preventing that.

Moreover, as Sheikh acknowledges:

“Many people also wear masks incorrectly, letting them dangle off the tips of their noses, or concealing just their mouths.

People also tend to readjust face masks frequently, or remove them to communicate with others, which increases their risk of being exposed or infecting others, he said.

He is Dr. Eli Perencevich, an infectious disease physician at the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Dr. Perencevich recognizes the problems inherent with masks, which is why, as Sheikh reports, he advocates the use of face shields instead.

Face shields, unlike masks,

protect the entire face, including the eyes, and prevent people from touching their faces or inadvertently exposing themselves to the coronavirus.

Face shields may be easier to wear than masks, he said, comparing them with wearing glasses or a hat. They wrap around a small portion of a person’s forehead rather than covering more than half their face with material that can create the urge to itch.

Importantly, face shields are far more sanitary than masks, which are supposed to be disposed of or regularly washed, but often aren’t. Indeed, mucus and germs can and do accumulate on the mask, thus putting the wearer at risk of other viral infections.

“The nice thing about face shields,” by contrast, “is that they can be resterilized and cleaned by the user, so they’re reusable indefinitely until some component breaks or cracks,” Dr. Yu said. A simple alcohol wipe or rinse with soap and hot water is all it takes for the shields to be contaminant-free again.

Dr. Yu, Sheikh notes, is a dermatology resident affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Siegel agrees: face shields make a lot more sense than masks. “When I worked on a coronavirus ward, I felt much safer because I also wore a plastic face shield, which blocks viral particles from even reaching the mask,” he writes.

Science Says. But my point here is not to argue for face shields instead of masks. My point is that people who (often self-righteously) insist we wear masks do so not because the science impels them to. They do so because it makes them feel good.

In truth, the science behind mask wearing is weak and lacking. The science behind social distancing, hand washing, and good hygienic practice, by contrast, is strong and compelling.

Which is why I avoid wearing a mask whenever I can while still practicing social distancing. The latter makes individual and public health sense; the former does not.

Feature photo credit: The Catholic Weekly.

The Choices We Need—to Which the New York Times is Utterly Oblivious

The Choices We Need—to Which the New York Times is Utterly Oblivious

By John R Guardiano on May 11, 2020

The New York Times today published a long and eloquently written editorial that blames affluent Americans (mostly white or caucasian) for segregating themselves off from less affluent Americans (mostly black and Hispanic) and thereby giving rise to economic inequality and, allegedly, a corresponding lack of opportunity for the poor and disadvantaged.

The Times is rightly worried that the COVID-19 pandemic will exacerbate this problem—if, as is likely, it causes the affluent to further flee densely packed cities for neighborhoods that are more inherently conducive to social distancing and thus safer from pathogens like the coronavirus.

Restrictive Zoning. The Times has a point when it criticizes restrictive local zoning ordinances, which too often prevent the development of denser, varied, and more affordable types of housing.

But instead of proposing the obvious solution to this problem—more open, accommodating, and less restrictive zoning ordinances—the Times proposes more authoritarian-style, command-and-control regulations such as those imposed by the state of Oregon.

Oregon, reports the Times, last year banned single-family zoning in all cities of more than 10,000 people.

Of course, this doesn’t solve the problem of affordable housing; it exacerbates it, as the affluent bid up the price of increasingly scarce single-family housing stock in economically segregated neighborhoods.

More options, not fewer options, in the housing and education markets are needed to create greater opportunity for America’s poor and disadvantaged.

Sins of Omission. For these reasons, the Times’ editorial is remarkable for what it does not mention.

There is no mention of school choice, which allows parents of poor and disadvantaged students to send their children to a public or private school of their choice regardless of district or jurisdictional boundaries.

School choice programs have been enacted with great success in many states and locales; however, they run afoul of the teachers unions, which are a powerful Democratic Party constituency with deep financial pockets and organizational wherewithal.

The teachers unions rightly fear that choice and competition threaten their public school monopoly. Thus they are vociferous opponents of school choice.

Crime. There also is no mention of crime—or at least no substantive mention of crime and the very real effect crime has had in creating residential segregation and the inequality that the Times laments.

Instead, the Times mentions the word crime exactly once, and only to belittle and disparage it as a reason the affluent have fled cities and created more economically segregated neighborhoods, both within cities and in the surrounding suburbs.

But the truth is: an explosion of violent crime in our nation’s cities in the 1960s and ‘70s caused many people of financial means, black and white, to flee the cities.

The New York Times to the contrary notwithstanding, this had nothing to do with selfishness or “racism.”

Instead, it had everything to do with safety and survival—for yourself, your family, and your loved ones—and with wanting to ensure that your children grew up in a neighborhood rich in opportunity and free of violent crime.

American cities have rebounded in recent decades after Rudy Giuliani and other urban leaders embraced conservative reforms that dramatically reduced violent crime and made cities once again an oasis of safety and culture.

Yet, the Times and other “progressives” have been working diligently to overturn these reforms—by attacking “stop-and-frisk” policing, for instance, and by seeking to eliminate entrance exams for New York City’s elite public high schools.

Of course, the Times editorial is silent about crime because it is the elephant in the room that dare not be mentioned in “progressive” circles—except insofar as it can be used as a cudgel to attack the police.

But make no mistake: undermining the achievements that New York and other cities have made in combating crime and in creating islands of educational excellence will not help the poor and disadvantaged; it simply will drive the affluent—black, white, and brown—further away.

School Funding. Finally, the Times pushes the old saw that we don’t spend enough money educating the poor and disadvantaged; and it laments the financial disparities that exist between affluent and poor school districts.

These disparities are real, but the notion that they are responsible for differences in educational achievement is silly and simply not supported by the facts. As Reason Magazine’s Ron Baily reports, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that

the gap in educational achievement between public school students in the bottom 10th economic status (SES) percentile and those in the top 90th SES percentile has remained essentially unchanged over the last 50 years.

[…]

The researchers note that these disappointing results occurred despite the fact that ‘overall school funding increased dramatically on a per-pupil basis, quadrupling in real dollars between 1960 and 2015.’ In addition, pupil-teacher ratios declined from 22.3 in 1970 to 16.1 in 2014.

In short, the problem is not money; the problem is the schools and the home environment of the students.

And this becomes especially obvious when you consider that many Catholic and public charter schools do a demonstrably better job educating poor and disadvantaged students and at a fraction of the cost of traditional public schools.

Choice and Competition. We absolutely need to create more opportunities for our fellow citizens who have failed to share or partake in our rising national affluence. And no doubt the COVID-19 pandemic makes this more difficult.

But ignoring politically inconvenient truths, as the New York Times does, makes this mission impossible. We need more choices, more competition, and freer and less fettered markets in housing and education.

Feature photo credit: Getty Images via the Wall Street Journal.

In the Fight Against the Coronavirus, Cuomo and Trump Show the Difference Between Style and Substance

In the Fight Against the Coronavirus, Cuomo and Trump Show the Difference Between Style and Substance

By John R Guardiano on May 9, 2020

When assessing how well our political leaders are doing and their job performance, it is important to look beyond the rhetoric to examine actual policies and real-world results.

Sometimes, political leaders who speak or behave poorly do a surprisingly good job, while political leaders who speak and behave in a more suave and polished fashion implement bad and disastrous policies.

Yet, if we focus simply on rhetoric and demeanor, and not policies and results, we miss what is most important. We elevate style over substance. We deprecate rhetorically challenged leaders with good records, while lauding silver-tongued politicos with bad records.

This is, of course, precisely backward. Results should matter more than rhetoric.

President Trump, obviously, is a political leader who is, to put it charitably, rhetorically challenged. His public pronouncements, especially his tweets, are often juvenile, embarrassing, and subliterate. Yet, his record as president is far better than his rhetoric would suggest.

Until the coronavirus pandemic hit, the U.S. economy was doing remarkably well, with record low unemployment, renewed economic growth, and a booming stock market.

The United States had avoided any major foreign policy crises, while adopting a more realistic approach toward China. Trump’s two Supreme Court appointments are superb, as are most of his federal court nominations.

Yes, Trump was pathetically slow to recognize the gravity of the coronavirus, largely because he was too trusting of China’s communist dictator, Xi Jinping. And his daily press briefings have been too often depressing, unenlightening, uninformative, and uninspiring.

This is not at all what we Americans want or expect from our president during a national crisis that is unprecedented in any of our lifetimes.

Still, despite his rhetorical weakness and tardiness, Trump has taken strong and decisive action to combat the coronavirus, and these politics have worked. The virus has been contained, and the worst predictions—two million dead, rationed care, a lack of ventilators, et al.—were never realized.

And—this is important—the worst predictions were never realized because of Trump administration policies.

The supply of ventilators to our nation’s hospitals is the most compelling case in point. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo spent most of March eloquently speechifying about how his state needed an additional 30,000 ventilators. Otherwise, he ominously warned, some patients who urgently need ventilators might be denied ventilators.

Trump was heavily criticized by his Democratic and media opponents for supposedly failing to deliver these ventilators.

Yet, behind the scenes, his administration was working diligently and creatively to ensure that ventilator production was ramped-up; and that ventilators were distributed in real-time, on an as-needed basis, nationwide to ensure that all patients were covered and cared for—and that exactly what happened.

In the end, no patient who ever needed a ventilator was ever denied a ventilator; and New York ended up donating ventilators to other states that needed them.

Of course, Trump never really explained this to the American people because he is so rhetorically weak and challenged. But his record of success here is impressive and undeniable.

Cuomo. Now, compare that to silver-tongued Andrew Cuomo, who speaks, acts and behaves like a political leader should during a time of national crisis. We here at ResCon1 have praised Cuomo for his leadership.

We even have suggested that, because of his performance during the coronavirus pandemic, Cuomo, and not Joe Biden, should be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

This is all true. However, it is also true that, despite his rhetorical gifts and undeniable leadership, Cuomo’s record during this crisis is suspect and deserves serious criticism.

Ventilators. Specifically, Cuomo and his health commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker, issued an edict Mar. 25 that required nursing homes “to admit or readmit recovering COVID-19 patients—despite openly acknowledging that the elderly are among the most vulnerable,” reports the New York Post.

The unsurprising result: “The coronavirus’ suspected death toll among New York’s nursing home residents exploded by an additional 1,700 fatalities.”

“COVID-19 complications have killed 4,813 residents of nursing homes and adult-care facilities—and that doesn’t include those who died in hospitals,” notes the Post’s editorial board.

“Known nursing deaths represent 25 percent of all deaths in the state,” adds Post columnist Michael Goodwin.

This is disgraceful precisely because these deaths were so predictable and avoidable. They resulted from a disastrous policy that Cuomo forced upon New York’s nursing homes.

“To them [the nursing homes],” explains Goodwin, Cuomo’s “March 25 order was a death sentence. Some facilities say they had no deaths or even positive patients before that date, but many of both since, including among staff members.”

New York’s nursing homes, reports the Post, “were clearly unprepared for the pandemic, lacking infection control protocols, sufficient personal protective equipment and tests to properly identify residents and staff infected with the virus.”

Rhetoric. Cuomo, of course, has tried to talk his way out of responsibility for this fiasco; and, truth be told, he is a much better talker than Trump. But rhetoric, no matter how eloquent and compelling, can conceal undeniable and indisputable truths.

And the truth is that Cuomo’s stupid and ill-advised policy re: nursing home admissions caused thousands of needless coronavirus deaths.

Yet, Cuomo’s more polished public persona and soothing rhetoric has had one beneficial effect, at least for him: It has spared him much media criticism that otherwise should be coming his way.

Trump, by contrast, has been the object of withering media criticism despite averting similarly bad outcomes and policy disasters.

The reason for this discrepancy, of course, is that Trump is, as they say, rough around the edges. He speaks poorly, shoots from the hip, vents his spleen, is prone to public displays of anger and frustration, and in general, behaves impulsively and acts out of pique.

What Matters. It would be much better for Trump and for the nation if he were more polished and disciplined; but at 73 years old, Trump is who he is. He won’t ever change.

We, however, can change our national focus and our national obsession. Instead of giving undue credence to Trump’s every utterance and solitary tweet, let’s focus more on his administration’s policies, record, and results.

And let’s do the same for his Democratic political opponents. That would result in a fairer and more balanced assessment of the Trump administration, as well as its possible successor or replacement.

Feature photo credit: New York Post.

Fake News Reported by the Washington Post: Trump’s Estimate of 60,000 Coronavirus Deaths

Fake News Reported by the Washington Post: Trump’s Estimate of 60,000 Coronavirus Deaths

By John R Guardiano on May 4, 2020

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes that President Trump’s estimate for the coronavirus death toll has changed over time, has been too optimistic, and differs from the estimate given by one of his chief medical advisers, Deborah Birx, M.D.

Another instance of Trump ignoring the medical and scientific experts because he doesn’t want to hear bad and politically inconvenient truths?

That, of course, is what “progressive” journalists would have us believe. However, the facts in this particular case don’t support the left-wing narrative.

As Blake reports, in recent weeks, Trump has said there would be between 50,000 and 60,000 deaths. Yet, yesterday (May 3, 2020), on Fox News Sunday, Birx “told Chris Wallace:

“Our projections have always been between 100,000 and 240,000 America lives lost, and that’s with full mitigation and us learning from each other of how to social distance.”

“That contradicts what Trump said,” Blake notes—“and even what he went on to say later in the day.

“The president hasn’t just offered a more optimistic tone on the death toll; on April 20, he suggested 50,000 to 60,000 deaths had actually replaced the previous 100,000-to-240,000 goal that he had said would constitute a successful response.”

“We are at over 66,000 deaths, with little sign in recent weeks of any significant downturn,” Blake notes.

Fauci’s Estimate. OK, but here’s the problem with Blake’s (left-wing) narrative: Trump didn’t just pull his estimate of 50,000 to 60,000 coronavirus deaths out of thin air.

Instead, he was given that estimate from another prominent medical adviser, one Anthony Fucci, who heads up the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

How do I know this? Because I reported it here at ResCon1 back on April 9 when referencing an April 9, 2020, report by National Public Radio.

The title of that NPR report: “Fauci Says U.S. Coronavirus Deaths May ‘Be More Like 60,000’; Antibody Tests on Way.”

National Public Radio, I wrote,

reports that, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “the final toll currently ‘looks more like 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000’ that U.S. officials previously estimated.”

NPR’s Bill Chappell:

Fauci, America’s leading expert on infectious diseases and a key member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, also said that antibody tests have been developed and will be available “very soon.”

[…]

The new projection sharply undercuts an estimate Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, made just 11 days ago. In late March, he said “between 100,000 and 200,000” people in the U.S. could die from COVID-19.

The 60,000 figure is reflected in a new projection by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, or IHME, a research center at the University of Washington.

The estimate predicts the U.S. death toll through early August; it also predicts that COVID-19 deaths will peak in this country on April 11.

Dr. Birx may believe that “our projections have always been between 100,000 and 240,000 American lives lost” to the coronavirus; but that’s not what her Trump administration colleague, Dr. Fauci, told the president.

Unfair Criticism. It is fair and reasonable to hold Trump accountable for his erratic and undisciplined remarks. However, it is unfair and unreasonable to blame him for relying on information given to him by one medical adviser (Dr. Fauci) that contradicts the information given to him by another medical adviser (Dr. Birx).

Moreover, while Trump’s estimate for the coronavirus death toll has changed over time, this is more a reflection of changing circumstances than deliberate or willful lying, distortion, and exaggeration.

Scientists and researchers, in fact, have revised, and continue to revise, their estimates as they learn more about the coronavirus. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Facts are stubborn things. They don’t always comport with left-wing journalists’ prefabricated, anti-Trump narrative. Give the president his due—and hold his medical advisers, Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci, to account.

Feature photo credit: Internewscast.