Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 902 Scott Adams： I Tell You About My Experience With Models. No, Not That Kind.

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in here.

00:00:12.280 It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's another wonderful morning.

00:00:17.520 Sure, we got problems.

00:00:19.520 The world has problems, it always does.

00:00:21.780 But is that going to stop you from enjoying the simultaneous sip?

00:00:25.260 No, no.

00:00:26.140 No, you're not the kind of person who would be deterred by things like that.

00:00:32.040 I just realized you can't say deterred without turd.

00:00:36.460 Hmm.

00:00:37.440 Never thought about that before.

00:00:39.420 But you can't say pandemic without dem. 0.90

00:00:42.720 That's a thing too.

00:00:44.340 All right, get ready.

00:00:45.720 You're all in here.

00:00:46.600 I know you're poised.

00:00:48.400 You're ready.

00:00:49.480 Oh yeah, you're ready.

00:00:50.300 And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein,

00:00:53.320 a canteen jug or a flask of a vessel of any kind.

00:00:55.280 You can fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:57.460 I like coffee.

00:00:59.000 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day,

00:01:01.860 the thing that makes everything, including the pandemic, better.

00:01:06.360 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:01:08.120 And it happens now.

00:01:09.820 Go.

00:01:10.060 Go.

00:01:10.120 Yes, I can feel my blood plasma getting stronger every moment.

00:01:24.980 I don't even know what that means.

00:01:27.680 Yeah, tonight I think I'll be giving myself a haircut.

00:01:30.480 But I have been hearing some suggestions that maybe I should work on the mullet.

00:01:37.460 It does look a little naturally mullety.

00:01:41.300 This is not a time for photographs.

00:01:44.180 I think I'm going to lose all of my photographs.

00:01:46.660 Well, not that I took any during this period.

00:01:48.520 All right, let's talk about some of the things in the news.

00:01:53.380 It's fun, of course.

00:01:55.060 Last night I already talked about Bernie.

00:01:56.860 Bernie dropping out.

00:01:59.400 Bernie's dropping out.

00:02:00.900 And, of course, it goes without saying that now the big question is,

00:02:04.920 who will Biden pick as his vice president?

00:02:07.180 And will he pick a vice president before he's replaced at the top of the ticket?

00:02:13.760 What would you say?

00:02:15.100 Do you think that Biden will select his vice president before he is replaced as the top of the ticket?

00:02:23.560 Because if he has a vice president, they can't really replace him without moving the vice president up.

00:02:30.620 Because if they don't promote the vice presidential candidate to the top of the ticket,

00:02:36.860 should they decide that Biden can't go on,

00:02:40.300 then what does it say about who he picked for the vice president?

00:02:44.460 If the vice presidential pick is not the automatic one who bumps up to the top,

00:02:49.360 then that person probably was not well chosen to begin with.

00:02:53.620 So that's not, I mean, it doesn't follow completely 100% logically,

00:02:57.860 but people are going to think of it that way.

00:03:00.620 Yeah, I'm going for the Tiger King look.

00:03:05.800 Thanks for making that comparison.

00:03:10.100 How much did you love the fact that Trump got a Tiger King question during the press conference?

00:03:17.960 On one hand, you say to yourself,

00:03:20.380 my God, what a waste of the public's time and the government's time 0.98

00:03:23.900 to ask such a silly question

00:03:26.540 at a time when we were more concerned about the massive global death toll and all that.

00:03:33.360 But I disagree.

00:03:35.240 I disagree.

00:03:36.420 First of all, you could tell that Trump sort of enjoyed it.

00:03:39.760 He sort of enjoyed the question.

00:03:41.720 It was sort of like a palate cleanser.

00:03:45.160 You just needed a little change of pace from the heaviness of the topic.

00:03:49.100 And I think the country enjoyed it, too.

00:03:53.160 So to the reporter who asked that question,

00:03:55.320 well, it wasn't news per se.

00:03:58.420 So, you know, that's, you know,

00:04:01.200 you can't say you were necessarily doing your job of getting the news.

00:04:05.700 But on the other hand,

00:04:07.580 the country sort of appreciated it.

00:04:11.000 So I don't know which news outlet it was who asked that question.

00:04:14.700 But to the reporter who did, I say,

00:04:17.000 thanks.

00:04:18.080 Thanks.

00:04:18.720 You know, I don't think we should be silly all the time.

00:04:21.780 But every now and then, things get so heavy 0.95

00:04:24.040 that I don't mind somebody, you know, the class clown.

00:04:27.960 I don't mind somebody who tells a joke.

00:04:30.540 I don't mind somebody who tries to, you know, break the mood a little bit.

00:04:33.820 So thank you.

00:04:35.420 I appreciated that.

00:04:38.320 Well, the debate has already started ahead of time

00:04:41.700 about whether the models were always bogus

00:04:45.200 or they were, you know, they were good and useful and credible.

00:04:51.860 And the argument's shaping up like this.

00:04:55.300 Some people are saying,

00:04:56.240 well, of course the death toll is lower

00:04:58.340 than even the lowest estimates of the model.

00:05:01.340 Well, it's outside of the entire range of the model,

00:05:04.820 but it's better.

00:05:07.020 And it's because we did such a good job

00:05:09.180 that even the models could not predict

00:05:12.400 how effective we would be.

00:05:14.460 So that's one of the movies.

00:05:16.920 And the other movie,

00:05:18.520 and of course we don't know how it all ends,

00:05:20.280 but so both of these movies assume

00:05:22.280 that they can predict that we're, you know,

00:05:25.140 turning the corner.

00:05:25.900 Then the other movie says

00:05:28.040 that the models were just baloney from the start

00:05:33.200 and we should have ignored them all

00:05:35.920 and just kept going to work

00:05:37.140 and we would have never known the difference.

00:05:41.680 Here's my take on this.

00:05:43.600 I don't think people understand

00:05:45.400 that models are not designed to be right.

00:05:48.880 And I think that's probably, I don't know,

00:05:53.120 95% of the public is under that impression

00:05:56.240 that if the experts build a model,

00:05:59.720 that the whole point of the model,

00:06:01.180 especially if it's got a very wide range,

00:06:03.740 you know, between 100,000

00:06:05.060 and 2 million people are dying,

00:06:07.200 you figure that range is so wide,

00:06:10.460 it's going to be in there somewhere, right?

00:06:12.500 So that's the usefulness of the model.

00:06:14.580 So if you're not anywhere

00:06:15.580 in that gigantic wide range,

00:06:19.040 critics get to say,

00:06:20.660 hey, I told you, told you.

00:06:23.420 Now, and of course,

00:06:24.500 the critics will also point out

00:06:25.620 that the bottom of the range

00:06:26.860 assumed that you tried as hard as you could

00:06:29.540 to mitigate.

00:06:31.080 So if you do even better than that,

00:06:32.880 well, what good was the model?

00:06:35.100 You know, it just shows

00:06:36.240 that the model was completely

00:06:37.380 in its own world from reality.

00:06:39.500 I disagree

00:06:40.280 because that's not what the models are for.

00:06:44.240 The models are meant to be useful.

00:06:46.760 They're not meant to be accurate.

00:06:49.900 Now, I say this as somebody

00:06:51.440 who built many financial models

00:06:53.260 in my corporate days.

00:06:54.780 It was my main job.

00:06:56.400 And I was always acutely aware

00:06:58.600 that my estimates

00:07:00.000 and my predictions were not accurate.

00:07:02.460 So instead,

00:07:03.680 I designed them to be useful.

00:07:07.480 And since most people

00:07:08.900 will never be able to understand

00:07:10.200 the distinction,

00:07:11.140 you could explain it to them forever,

00:07:12.820 and they'll look you right in the eyes

00:07:14.840 right after you've explained it

00:07:16.200 and they'll say,

00:07:17.080 yeah, but it's not accurate.

00:07:19.580 And then you'll start again

00:07:20.720 and you'll say,

00:07:21.100 okay, okay,

00:07:21.640 I don't think you're hearing me.

00:07:23.640 Nobody can predict the future.

00:07:26.120 So being accurate

00:07:27.160 wasn't even in the set of possibilities

00:07:29.680 unless you were just lucky.

00:07:31.420 So being accurate

00:07:32.380 is not even a goal

00:07:33.300 because it can't be done.

00:07:35.080 If anybody could predict the future

00:07:37.340 the way these models pretend to,

00:07:40.880 well, anybody who could do that

00:07:42.080 would be rich from the stock market.

00:07:43.840 They'd be rich from

00:07:44.620 a dozen other things

00:07:46.080 that they could predict

00:07:47.080 and they could bet on.

00:07:49.000 Because anybody who can 0.99

00:07:51.180 accurately predict the future

00:07:53.240 of anything,

00:07:55.100 of anything,

00:07:56.020 from a hurricane,

00:07:57.400 from climate science,

00:07:58.580 to the economy,

00:07:59.640 the stock market,

00:08:00.960 to the coronavirus,

00:08:02.860 anybody who could

00:08:05.020 accurately predict the future

00:08:08.500 in those multivariable situations

00:08:10.640 would just go make bets

00:08:12.400 and be rich.

00:08:14.200 But it's not a thing.

00:08:16.220 It's just not a thing.

00:08:18.000 So that's why people don't do it.

00:08:19.540 If they couldn't do it,

00:08:20.360 they'd do it.

00:08:21.140 They'd say,

00:08:21.500 whoa, this model's giving me an edge. 0.96

00:08:23.660 I'll go make a bet

00:08:24.640 based on this model.

00:08:26.560 Instead,

00:08:27.960 the models are meant to be useful.

00:08:30.700 Now, how many of you

00:08:31.400 are you confused?

00:08:32.560 Because you're thinking to yourself,

00:08:34.940 and by the way,

00:08:35.460 I'm using a persuasion technique now.

00:08:38.720 I'll call it out in a minute.

00:08:40.260 But how many of you

00:08:40.960 are thinking to yourself,

00:08:41.880 Scott, Scott, Scott, 0.59

00:08:42.820 you're talking crazy

00:08:44.720 because you're saying

00:08:45.800 that the models

00:08:46.520 don't need to be even accurate,

00:08:49.800 like even accurate

00:08:51.040 within a gigantic range.

00:08:52.800 They don't need to be accurate.

00:08:54.580 And still, they're useful.

00:08:57.060 Explain that, cartoon boy.

00:08:58.760 Those are like opposites.

00:08:59.880 If it's completely inaccurate

00:09:01.800 to not even be

00:09:03.100 in the general range,

00:09:04.180 it can't also be useful.

00:09:08.360 Except that everyone

00:09:09.320 who makes models

00:09:10.100 know that they can be.

00:09:12.200 You'll see a few people say yes,

00:09:13.760 the people who have

00:09:14.360 some experience in this field.

00:09:16.620 The models are not meant

00:09:18.340 to be accurate.

00:09:19.620 They're not designed that way.

00:09:21.460 It's not a hope.

00:09:22.620 It's not a dream.

00:09:23.400 It would only be luck

00:09:24.160 if they were accurate.

00:09:24.860 What the models

00:09:26.280 are supposed to do

00:09:27.080 is change your behavior.

00:09:31.020 That's the only thing

00:09:31.920 you need to know.

00:09:32.940 The point of a model

00:09:34.340 is to change your behavior.

00:09:36.820 And if the model does that,

00:09:39.260 and it changes your behavior

00:09:40.960 in a productive way,

00:09:42.900 then it can be said

00:09:43.860 that the model was useful,

00:09:45.740 even completely inaccurate.

00:09:47.700 So let's take this case

00:09:48.760 of the coronavirus.

00:09:50.760 What did the models

00:09:52.500 which were completely inaccurate?

00:09:55.320 Did they persuade us?

00:09:57.920 I think you'd say yes.

00:09:59.760 At least enough of us

00:10:00.840 were persuaded

00:10:01.500 that it was a gigantic risk

00:10:03.660 that huge changes in behavior

00:10:06.540 happened fairly quickly.

00:10:08.780 So did the models

00:10:09.940 cause us to change behavior?

00:10:11.880 Yes.

00:10:13.140 Now, the second question is,

00:10:15.180 should they?

00:10:16.560 Was it right

00:10:17.660 to change our behavior?

00:10:19.360 Well, that's the part

00:10:20.340 that becomes the two movies

00:10:21.580 and maybe we'll never settle.

00:10:23.780 But the argument goes

00:10:25.140 that if we hadn't changed

00:10:26.420 our behavior this much,

00:10:28.140 we would not be getting

00:10:29.480 a result that at least

00:10:30.980 preliminarily looks like

00:10:32.600 it might not be so bad

00:10:34.260 compared to the models.

00:10:36.000 Now, can the models predict

00:10:37.660 accurately

00:10:39.260 how well people will respond

00:10:42.380 even in the near term?

00:10:44.180 Not really.

00:10:45.360 Nobody can make a model like that.

00:10:47.140 Because it can't pick up innovation.

00:10:49.360 Did the models, for example,

00:10:51.760 predict that somebody

00:10:53.560 would find a way

00:10:54.220 to split ventilators

00:10:55.420 and effectively

00:10:56.520 double the capacity,

00:10:58.560 at least in those

00:10:59.360 emergency situations

00:11:00.620 and temporarily?

00:11:02.100 Did the model pick that up?

00:11:04.100 Did the model

00:11:04.960 have a number in it

00:11:06.000 for the effectiveness

00:11:08.740 of the hydroxychloroquine?

00:11:11.920 Because if the model

00:11:13.800 did have an estimate

00:11:15.080 for the effectiveness

00:11:16.820 of the hydroxychloroquine,

00:11:19.000 how do they know that?

00:11:20.520 We don't know that.

00:11:22.260 Why would the model numbers,

00:11:23.660 how would the model people

00:11:25.000 know the effectiveness

00:11:26.760 of the hydroxychloroquine

00:11:28.160 if we don't know

00:11:28.880 and the scientists don't know?

00:11:30.840 So keep in mind

00:11:32.620 that these models

00:11:33.420 are persuasion

00:11:34.380 and if they persuade you

00:11:36.580 in the right direction,

00:11:39.120 they worked.

00:11:40.180 They were useful.

00:11:42.160 Now, of course,

00:11:43.020 they could over-persuade you, right?

00:11:44.480 They could persuade you

00:11:45.280 to do the wrong thing.

00:11:46.560 So that's the distinction.

00:11:48.080 If it persuades you

00:11:48.900 to do the right thing,

00:11:49.960 and even if you can

00:11:50.960 determine that,

00:11:51.780 because even after the fact,

00:11:53.560 we'll never really know

00:11:55.100 what was the right thing

00:11:56.580 even after the fact.

00:11:58.620 We can only know,

00:12:00.560 here's the only thing

00:12:01.280 you can know,

00:12:02.540 is if the model

00:12:03.740 got people to act

00:12:04.880 in the way that

00:12:05.600 the consensus

00:12:06.460 of the experts

00:12:07.500 thought was the right way

00:12:09.360 to act.

00:12:10.840 That's about as good

00:12:12.940 as you can do.

00:12:14.480 So I would argue

00:12:15.340 that we are not acting

00:12:16.720 so much to satisfy

00:12:18.920 the requirements

00:12:20.100 of the model,

00:12:21.240 but rather,

00:12:22.100 I would put it this way,

00:12:23.080 as a person

00:12:23.680 who has developed

00:12:24.500 many models

00:12:25.400 for the purposes

00:12:27.300 of management.

00:12:29.480 Management decides

00:12:30.900 what they want to do,

00:12:32.800 and then they have you

00:12:33.980 build a model

00:12:34.720 that supports the story.

00:12:36.020 And if the experts

00:12:38.680 collectively say,

00:12:39.740 you know,

00:12:40.440 I don't think

00:12:41.540 we can model this.

00:12:43.000 Honestly,

00:12:43.600 I don't think we know

00:12:44.660 how big a problem

00:12:45.440 this is.

00:12:46.520 But from the little hints

00:12:47.520 we have about

00:12:48.480 how viral it is,

00:12:50.880 the information

00:12:51.740 we got out of China,

00:12:53.580 of how bad it was,

00:12:55.040 the number of,

00:12:56.220 you know,

00:12:56.520 body bags

00:12:57.160 that we had to order,

00:12:58.560 the number of ICU rooms

00:13:00.100 that were over capacity,

00:13:01.380 so based on

00:13:02.500 the little hints,

00:13:05.160 we experts,

00:13:06.180 not me,

00:13:06.820 but talking about

00:13:07.580 the experts,

00:13:08.440 look at it and say,

00:13:09.400 we should try as hard

00:13:10.480 as we can

00:13:11.180 to avoid the worst case.

00:13:14.180 That might be

00:13:15.040 the only thing

00:13:15.780 that could be known

00:13:16.640 with any kind

00:13:18.120 of confidence

00:13:18.840 that all of the experts

00:13:20.540 collectively

00:13:21.200 had sort of

00:13:21.880 the same feeling

00:13:22.780 about it.

00:13:23.700 And I think they did.

00:13:25.020 I think if you were

00:13:25.720 to survey the ones

00:13:26.980 who were the virologists,

00:13:29.080 I think that in general

00:13:30.060 they would all say,

00:13:30.780 whoa,

00:13:31.880 based on these

00:13:32.920 little facts,

00:13:34.380 which are anecdotal

00:13:35.620 but very scary,

00:13:37.240 it does look like,

00:13:38.660 in my professional opinion

00:13:39.840 as an expert virologist,

00:13:41.740 for example,

00:13:43.160 it does look like

00:13:44.000 we should put

00:13:44.480 the maximum effort

00:13:45.760 into stopping this.

00:13:48.060 And then they build

00:13:48.700 a model,

00:13:49.460 because the public

00:13:50.280 isn't going to take

00:13:51.260 an opinion,

00:13:52.920 the public needs

00:13:54.300 something a little

00:13:54.820 more convincing.

00:13:56.540 What would be

00:13:57.120 more convincing

00:13:57.780 than just interviews

00:13:58.880 with scientists

00:13:59.720 who say,

00:14:00.280 hey,

00:14:00.900 you should do

00:14:01.340 this thing,

00:14:02.740 a picture.

00:14:04.920 So the scientists

00:14:06.300 know,

00:14:07.120 and everybody

00:14:07.780 involved knows

00:14:08.420 that a picture

00:14:08.840 is more influential,

00:14:09.720 so it gets turned

00:14:10.660 into a graph,

00:14:11.440 a picture,

00:14:12.240 a range,

00:14:13.240 a statistic,

00:14:14.060 because that's

00:14:14.560 how you communicate it.

00:14:16.420 So the graph

00:14:17.620 and the picture

00:14:18.200 should not be seen

00:14:19.260 as something

00:14:19.740 which should be

00:14:20.580 viewed as true

00:14:22.320 or false

00:14:23.900 or accurate

00:14:25.700 or inaccurate

00:14:27.240 because they're

00:14:28.200 not even built

00:14:28.800 for that purpose.

00:14:30.080 They're built

00:14:30.880 to persuade

00:14:31.820 in a way

00:14:33.200 that the consensus

00:14:34.120 of the experts

00:14:35.020 legitimately feel

00:14:36.240 is in the best

00:14:36.920 interest of the country

00:14:38.400 because I think

00:14:38.880 mostly they're,

00:14:39.540 you know,

00:14:40.040 they're good eggs

00:14:41.060 who want the best

00:14:42.380 thing to happen.

00:14:42.900 So this argument

00:14:45.580 we're having

00:14:46.120 about whether

00:14:46.700 they were accurate

00:14:47.540 and whether they

00:14:48.520 had to be revised

00:14:49.440 and all that

00:14:50.080 is people who

00:14:51.180 don't understand

00:14:51.840 what the models are.

00:14:53.980 So these are

00:14:54.580 arguments from

00:14:55.700 people who have

00:14:56.440 never modeled

00:14:57.040 and don't understand

00:14:58.460 the world,

00:14:59.560 and so neither

00:15:00.040 the pros

00:15:00.720 nor the con

00:15:01.380 arguments are

00:15:02.200 even a little

00:15:03.020 bit sensible.

00:15:04.240 They're not even

00:15:04.900 the right argument,

00:15:05.780 really.

00:15:05.980 And what you

00:15:07.740 should see

00:15:08.380 with any model

00:15:10.200 is that they

00:15:11.120 start out wildly

00:15:12.100 inaccurate because

00:15:13.120 nobody can predict

00:15:14.000 the future,

00:15:15.080 and then as you

00:15:15.940 get closer to

00:15:16.800 whatever date

00:15:17.440 you can measure

00:15:18.940 for sure whether

00:15:20.020 you were right

00:15:20.540 or wrong,

00:15:21.500 as you get closer

00:15:22.340 to knowing the

00:15:23.520 answer,

00:15:24.340 the models start

00:15:25.560 getting molded

00:15:26.700 and retrofitted

00:15:27.500 and tweaked

00:15:28.820 until they come

00:15:29.760 into conformance

00:15:30.560 with reality.

00:15:31.700 Now you saw

00:15:32.100 that in 2016,

00:15:33.360 the polls of

00:15:35.820 who would win

00:15:36.240 the election

00:15:36.680 were wildly

00:15:38.200 off,

00:15:39.280 but as you

00:15:40.000 got closer

00:15:40.520 and closer

00:15:40.920 to election

00:15:41.540 day,

00:15:41.900 they started

00:15:42.340 to narrow.

00:15:43.340 I think

00:15:43.600 Rasmussen

00:15:44.220 nailed it,

00:15:45.780 but most of

00:15:46.260 the other

00:15:46.620 polls were

00:15:47.640 at least

00:15:48.020 closing that

00:15:49.100 gigantic gap

00:15:50.040 that said

00:15:50.560 Hillary would 0.99

00:15:51.480 win.

00:15:52.260 Most of them

00:15:53.060 narrowed toward

00:15:53.780 the end,

00:15:54.840 and that's

00:15:55.440 normal.

00:15:56.880 Does that mean

00:15:57.740 that the polls

00:15:58.400 were all wrong?

00:16:00.280 Well,

00:16:00.840 if you think

00:16:01.460 polls are right

00:16:02.160 in the first

00:16:02.640 place,

00:16:03.360 yeah,

00:16:04.080 but polls

00:16:05.600 are pretty

00:16:07.000 gross objects

00:16:07.900 too.

00:16:08.220 So,

00:16:08.360 all right,

00:16:09.180 here's some

00:16:12.180 examples of 0.95

00:16:13.000 loser think 0.96

00:16:13.600 in the news. 0.99

00:16:16.420 So,

00:16:16.880 this is,

00:16:17.880 let's see,

00:16:21.380 Kevin Miller,

00:16:23.140 he's just

00:16:24.840 some user

00:16:25.620 on Twitter,

00:16:27.200 said that

00:16:27.700 there's literally

00:16:28.300 no argument

00:16:29.000 to the numbers

00:16:30.440 would be higher

00:16:31.080 if we didn't

00:16:31.760 do all that

00:16:32.660 we did,

00:16:33.120 and yet

00:16:34.420 people will

00:16:35.320 argue it.

00:16:35.980 So,

00:16:36.200 Kevin is

00:16:37.360 saying that

00:16:38.020 you can't

00:16:39.400 reasonably

00:16:39.940 argue

00:16:40.420 that the

00:16:42.260 reason that

00:16:42.820 the numbers

00:16:43.280 are good

00:16:44.220 is because

00:16:45.900 we did

00:16:46.340 all the

00:16:46.600 mitigation.

00:16:47.340 So,

00:16:47.520 Kevin's

00:16:47.860 saying it's

00:16:48.760 so obvious

00:16:49.320 that should

00:16:49.720 be the end

00:16:50.180 of the

00:16:50.380 argument.

00:16:51.120 The mitigation

00:16:51.580 is the

00:16:52.480 reason

00:16:53.080 the death

00:16:54.580 rate is

00:16:54.980 low.

00:16:55.300 It's the

00:16:55.600 reason.

00:16:56.040 It's an

00:16:56.300 obvious

00:16:56.600 reason.

00:16:57.060 We did

00:16:57.360 it for

00:16:57.760 that

00:16:58.040 purpose.

00:16:59.020 The

00:16:59.200 experts

00:16:59.540 said if

00:17:00.100 you do

00:17:00.440 this,

00:17:00.840 the death

00:17:01.140 rate will

00:17:01.460 come down,

00:17:01.920 and then

00:17:02.200 it came

00:17:02.460 down.

00:17:03.320 That's

00:17:03.720 why it

00:17:04.080 came

00:17:04.240 down.

00:17:04.820 So,

00:17:05.360 Kevin is

00:17:05.960 saying there's

00:17:06.580 no argument.

00:17:08.100 The numbers

00:17:08.680 would be

00:17:09.120 higher if

00:17:09.700 we didn't

00:17:10.000 do all

00:17:10.360 that we

00:17:10.580 did.

00:17:12.900 So,

00:17:13.500 this is 0.99

00:17:13.940 loser 0.98

00:17:14.180 think. 1.00

00:17:15.360 And it's

00:17:15.740 a specific

00:17:16.280 form of 0.97

00:17:16.820 loser 0.98

00:17:17.040 think that 0.99

00:17:17.640 I write

00:17:18.160 about in

00:17:18.600 one chapter

00:17:19.100 of my

00:17:19.420 book, 1.00

00:17:19.680 loser 0.99

00:17:19.860 think, 0.99

00:17:20.220 which you

00:17:20.500 should

00:17:20.640 all buy

00:17:21.720 because you

00:17:22.140 have time

00:17:22.560 to read

00:17:23.760 it.

00:17:24.660 And this

00:17:25.820 is what

00:17:26.140 I call

00:17:26.400 the failure

00:17:26.920 of imagination.

00:17:28.660 So,

00:17:28.920 whenever

00:17:29.260 anybody

00:17:29.880 says there's

00:17:30.580 no other

00:17:31.060 explanation,

00:17:31.920 there are

00:17:33.720 two

00:17:33.860 possibilities.

00:17:34.740 One,

00:17:35.720 it was at

00:17:36.180 the right.

00:17:36.900 There's just

00:17:37.260 no other

00:17:37.660 explanation.

00:17:38.720 But the

00:17:39.240 other possibility

00:17:40.040 that's

00:17:40.480 gigantic is

00:17:42.260 that you're

00:17:42.540 not good at

00:17:43.100 imagining

00:17:43.580 other

00:17:43.900 possibilities.

00:17:46.400 And that's

00:17:47.020 the case

00:17:47.340 here.

00:17:47.920 So,

00:17:48.200 let me give

00:17:48.480 you an 0.64

00:17:48.640 example.

00:17:49.540 So,

00:17:49.780 Kevin cannot

00:17:50.520 imagine,

00:17:51.260 based on his

00:17:51.900 comment,

00:17:52.360 I'm saying he

00:17:52.820 can't imagine

00:17:53.480 because he

00:17:54.320 says there's

00:17:54.700 literally,

00:17:55.860 not figuratively,

00:17:57.020 literally there's

00:17:57.680 no argument

00:17:58.260 except that

00:17:59.940 the mitigation

00:18:00.500 worked.

00:18:01.100 It's the

00:18:01.400 only thing

00:18:01.780 you could

00:18:02.080 say,

00:18:02.420 looking at

00:18:02.840 the evidence,

00:18:04.280 to which I

00:18:04.940 say,

00:18:06.080 no,

00:18:07.720 no,

00:18:08.400 I'm afraid

00:18:09.660 that's not

00:18:10.180 the only way

00:18:11.020 to interpret

00:18:11.560 it.

00:18:12.200 Here's the

00:18:12.740 other way.

00:18:13.820 You tell me

00:18:14.340 if this is

00:18:14.800 crazy.

00:18:15.960 The other 0.97

00:18:16.300 way to

00:18:16.600 interpret

00:18:16.940 is the

00:18:17.540 mitigation

00:18:18.180 worked a

00:18:19.000 little bit,

00:18:20.140 just like

00:18:21.080 everybody

00:18:21.400 thought it

00:18:21.820 would work,

00:18:22.860 but a

00:18:23.200 little bit.

00:18:23.660 And the

00:18:25.040 biggest

00:18:25.280 difference

00:18:25.700 was that

00:18:26.100 the models

00:18:26.540 were wildly

00:18:27.900 inaccurate.

00:18:29.880 How do

00:18:30.300 you rule

00:18:30.620 out that

00:18:30.980 possibility?

00:18:32.200 Because

00:18:32.520 Kevin is

00:18:33.400 correct that

00:18:34.780 it has to

00:18:35.480 make a

00:18:35.820 difference,

00:18:36.400 that everybody

00:18:37.040 did social

00:18:37.680 isolation,

00:18:38.560 and a lot

00:18:39.380 of people

00:18:39.680 wore masks,

00:18:40.880 and it

00:18:41.840 had to make

00:18:42.340 a difference.

00:18:43.680 So Kevin's

00:18:44.320 right about

00:18:44.680 that.

00:18:45.840 But how

00:18:46.180 can Kevin

00:18:46.680 measure how

00:18:47.880 much of the

00:18:48.460 total difference

00:18:49.200 can be

00:18:50.120 ascribed to

00:18:50.820 that one

00:18:51.560 factor?

00:18:52.040 He can't.

00:18:52.920 It can't

00:18:53.260 be measured.

00:18:53.720 You can't

00:18:54.120 measure it,

00:18:54.520 I can't

00:18:54.880 measure it,

00:18:55.280 the experts

00:18:55.740 can't measure it.

00:18:56.320 It can't

00:18:56.580 be measured.

00:18:57.920 And if we

00:18:58.400 tried to

00:18:58.780 compare it

00:18:59.280 to other

00:18:59.620 countries,

00:19:00.620 say,

00:19:00.920 well,

00:19:01.080 let's compare

00:19:01.600 it to one

00:19:02.020 of these

00:19:02.260 other

00:19:02.480 countries,

00:19:03.140 we'll find

00:19:03.920 one that

00:19:04.340 did everything

00:19:04.880 the same

00:19:05.400 except maybe

00:19:06.020 this one

00:19:06.480 variable,

00:19:07.660 and then

00:19:08.000 that'll tell

00:19:08.500 us something.

00:19:09.120 It's like,

00:19:09.380 oh,

00:19:09.500 you did

00:19:09.740 everything

00:19:10.040 the same

00:19:10.620 except you

00:19:11.580 didn't wear

00:19:12.060 masks,

00:19:13.200 well,

00:19:13.480 we'll compare

00:19:13.940 you to the

00:19:14.360 countries that

00:19:14.860 did wear

00:19:15.180 masks and see

00:19:15.800 if we learn

00:19:16.220 anything.

00:19:17.380 Probably

00:19:17.820 doesn't work

00:19:18.540 because there

00:19:19.840 aren't two

00:19:20.480 countries that

00:19:21.140 are enough

00:19:21.820 alike.

00:19:22.860 I'm seeing

00:19:23.480 people mention

00:19:24.180 the countries,

00:19:24.800 well,

00:19:24.960 what about

00:19:25.260 Sweden?

00:19:26.320 What about

00:19:26.700 the fact that

00:19:27.420 Singapore had

00:19:28.340 a good result,

00:19:29.340 but they

00:19:29.860 didn't wear

00:19:30.260 masks?

00:19:31.660 But they

00:19:32.000 did do

00:19:32.520 good contact

00:19:33.540 checking.

00:19:34.280 My point

00:19:34.840 is that all

00:19:35.620 the countries

00:19:36.040 are going to

00:19:36.400 be so

00:19:37.400 fundamentally

00:19:38.060 different on

00:19:38.960 so many

00:19:39.400 big points

00:19:40.300 from,

00:19:41.460 you know,

00:19:41.640 is it a

00:19:42.020 country where

00:19:42.500 they hug

00:19:42.940 a lot?

00:19:43.720 Do they

00:19:44.060 have old

00:19:44.480 people living

00:19:44.980 inside?

00:19:45.700 What's the

00:19:47.100 size of the

00:19:48.320 country?

00:19:48.700 What's the

00:19:49.020 quality of the

00:19:50.260 health care?

00:19:50.820 What's the

00:19:51.120 flexibility?

00:19:51.700 You just

00:19:52.360 can't compare

00:19:52.880 two countries,

00:19:53.520 I don't think.

00:19:54.420 I don't think

00:19:55.360 we'll ever

00:19:55.840 have a good

00:19:56.660 answer about

00:19:59.760 what works,

00:20:01.020 except that

00:20:01.540 we'll know

00:20:01.900 social isolation

00:20:02.860 has to work,

00:20:04.060 I mean,

00:20:04.320 logically it

00:20:04.900 has to work,

00:20:05.760 in the same

00:20:06.340 way that face

00:20:06.900 masks logically

00:20:08.420 had to work

00:20:09.120 a little bit.

00:20:10.220 You just

00:20:10.640 don't know

00:20:10.920 how much.

00:20:12.760 So,

00:20:14.580 Kevin,

00:20:15.160 I would say

00:20:15.600 that you

00:20:15.980 were blind

00:20:17.260 to the other

00:20:17.980 possibility that,

00:20:19.400 of course,

00:20:19.840 the mitigation

00:20:20.240 works,

00:20:20.960 but we

00:20:21.200 don't know

00:20:21.500 how much,

00:20:22.600 and it

00:20:22.980 is easily

00:20:23.720 possible,

00:20:25.160 easily

00:20:25.600 possible,

00:20:26.560 that the

00:20:26.920 biggest difference

00:20:27.640 in the change

00:20:28.360 of the estimates

00:20:29.020 had to do

00:20:30.100 with the

00:20:30.480 estimates weren't

00:20:31.160 that good in

00:20:31.640 the first place.

00:20:33.080 Now,

00:20:33.360 I'm not saying

00:20:33.700 that's the

00:20:34.120 case,

00:20:35.120 I'm saying

00:20:35.500 you can't

00:20:36.020 rule it out,

00:20:36.700 and it's so

00:20:37.200 dead simply

00:20:38.420 obvious that

00:20:39.240 it's possible,

00:20:40.800 and it would

00:20:41.360 be routine,

00:20:42.160 it wouldn't

00:20:42.400 even be

00:20:42.840 unusual if

00:20:43.800 that were the

00:20:44.220 case,

00:20:44.560 nothing about

00:20:45.100 that would

00:20:45.400 be weird.

00:20:46.860 You can't

00:20:47.200 rule it out.

00:20:47.640 All right.

00:20:51.100 Now,

00:20:51.600 there will

00:20:51.880 be much

00:20:52.300 said about

00:20:52.900 the fact

00:20:53.360 that the

00:20:53.920 bottom range

00:20:54.880 of the

00:20:55.140 models was

00:20:56.200 100,000

00:20:57.000 deaths,

00:20:58.100 and very

00:20:58.580 quickly it

00:20:59.220 got modified

00:20:59.860 down to,

00:21:00.480 well,

00:21:00.960 100,000,

00:21:02.140 we meant a

00:21:02.820 minimum of

00:21:03.340 60,000,

00:21:04.280 and when that

00:21:04.840 gets modified

00:21:05.400 down,

00:21:05.920 which it

00:21:06.180 might be,

00:21:07.080 I think it'll

00:21:07.540 get at least

00:21:08.300 a 50% chance

00:21:09.380 it'll get

00:21:09.680 modified down

00:21:10.360 again,

00:21:11.360 people will

00:21:12.260 say,

00:21:12.480 we'll see how

00:21:12.920 wrong the

00:21:13.320 model was,

00:21:13.900 and other

00:21:14.160 people will

00:21:14.540 say,

00:21:14.800 see how good

00:21:15.320 the mitigation

00:21:15.760 was,

00:21:16.260 and we'll

00:21:16.520 never get

00:21:16.900 to the

00:21:17.120 end.

00:21:20.560 Let me

00:21:21.040 ask you

00:21:21.360 this,

00:21:22.340 what are

00:21:22.720 the odds

00:21:23.360 that a

00:21:24.180 big,

00:21:24.500 complicated

00:21:25.060 model would

00:21:28.360 be accurate

00:21:28.880 in the first

00:21:29.280 place?

00:21:30.320 What are

00:21:30.660 the odds

00:21:31.060 that even

00:21:31.540 if it gave

00:21:32.000 a range,

00:21:32.680 and it's a

00:21:33.020 really big

00:21:33.420 range of

00:21:34.040 possibilities,

00:21:35.100 what are

00:21:35.380 the odds

00:21:35.800 that it's

00:21:37.440 still going

00:21:37.780 to be in

00:21:38.080 that gigantic

00:21:38.680 range?

00:21:39.920 Is it

00:21:40.260 really 95%

00:21:41.520 like they

00:21:42.360 might want

00:21:42.780 you to

00:21:43.000 believe?

00:21:43.740 In my

00:21:44.260 experience,

00:21:44.800 even big

00:21:45.940 ranges are

00:21:47.340 just routinely

00:21:48.040 wrong.

00:21:49.260 I mean,

00:21:49.460 it's not

00:21:49.700 even unusual

00:21:50.320 to have a

00:21:50.820 gigantic range

00:21:51.740 of possibilities

00:21:52.440 and still

00:21:53.080 be way

00:21:54.440 under it

00:21:54.880 or way

00:21:55.160 over it.

00:21:55.660 Not

00:21:55.900 unusual

00:21:56.260 though.

00:21:58.560 All right.

00:22:03.660 Here's

00:22:04.140 some other

00:22:04.880 stuff.

00:22:06.540 The question

00:22:07.540 of who

00:22:08.020 Biden

00:22:09.980 picks for

00:22:10.500 his

00:22:10.680 vice

00:22:10.900 presidential

00:22:11.360 running

00:22:11.700 mate

00:22:12.000 is

00:22:13.120 getting

00:22:13.360 really

00:22:13.660 interesting

00:22:14.140 because

00:22:14.520 of the

00:22:14.780 timing

00:22:15.160 because

00:22:16.660 you know

00:22:17.020 this

00:22:17.240 conversation

00:22:17.860 is

00:22:18.140 happening

00:22:18.500 among

00:22:19.220 the

00:22:19.420 Democrats.

00:22:20.040 They're

00:22:20.120 thinking,

00:22:20.600 oh my

00:22:20.780 God,

00:22:21.160 what are

00:22:21.360 we

00:22:21.480 going

00:22:21.640 to do

00:22:21.820 about

00:22:22.040 Joe

00:22:22.260 Biden

00:22:22.560 because

00:22:23.360 we

00:22:23.540 can't

00:22:23.840 have

00:22:24.040 him

00:22:24.240 as

00:22:24.460 our

00:22:24.640 standard

00:22:25.000 bearer.

00:22:25.420 you

00:22:25.660 know

00:22:25.860 that

00:22:26.060 conversation

00:22:26.600 is

00:22:26.840 happening.

00:22:27.880 I

00:22:28.340 know

00:22:28.540 that

00:22:28.740 conversation

00:22:29.260 is

00:22:29.480 happening

00:22:29.800 because

00:22:30.060 I've

00:22:30.240 actually

00:22:30.560 talked

00:22:30.940 to

00:22:31.100 people

00:22:31.400 who

00:22:32.420 are

00:22:32.660 prominent

00:22:33.840 Democrats

00:22:34.500 and let

00:22:35.420 me tell

00:22:35.680 you,

00:22:36.020 that

00:22:36.280 conversation

00:22:36.800 is

00:22:37.020 happening.

00:22:38.220 But there

00:22:38.940 are two

00:22:39.320 logical

00:22:39.920 ways to

00:22:40.620 go about

00:22:41.080 it.

00:22:41.680 Well,

00:22:41.920 three,

00:22:42.340 I guess.

00:22:42.980 Three.

00:22:43.660 One would

00:22:44.120 be to

00:22:44.820 just

00:22:46.200 replace

00:22:46.700 him at

00:22:47.240 the

00:22:47.400 convention

00:22:47.840 and just

00:22:49.560 have some

00:22:50.040 kind of

00:22:50.340 a revolution

00:22:51.100 at the

00:22:51.440 convention

00:22:51.800 and pick

00:22:52.180 somebody

00:22:52.500 else.

00:22:53.040 That's

00:22:53.360 possible.

00:22:53.740 But I

00:22:54.480 think that

00:22:54.780 would be

00:22:55.060 very

00:22:55.380 divisive.

00:22:56.940 That's

00:22:57.180 risky.

00:22:58.100 The other

00:22:58.620 possibility

00:22:59.120 would be

00:22:59.740 to replace

00:23:00.540 him now.

00:23:02.240 You know,

00:23:02.420 have somebody

00:23:02.940 talk him

00:23:03.480 out of

00:23:03.720 running and

00:23:04.960 say,

00:23:05.280 look,

00:23:05.440 look,

00:23:05.620 look,

00:23:05.860 we still

00:23:06.540 have time

00:23:06.880 to slot

00:23:07.980 in Mario

00:23:09.080 Cuomo or

00:23:10.340 somebody,

00:23:10.900 not Mario,

00:23:11.720 Andrew

00:23:12.020 Cuomo.

00:23:13.180 And so

00:23:14.960 let's do

00:23:15.280 it now.

00:23:15.920 I don't

00:23:16.500 think that's

00:23:17.000 going to

00:23:17.220 happen because

00:23:18.620 we're a

00:23:18.980 little too

00:23:19.480 close to

00:23:20.160 the convention

00:23:20.760 and it

00:23:22.020 would look

00:23:22.420 like the

00:23:23.500 entire

00:23:23.940 democratic

00:23:25.980 nomination

00:23:27.920 process was

00:23:28.780 a sham.

00:23:30.120 It would

00:23:30.360 be one

00:23:30.720 thing to

00:23:31.160 argue it

00:23:31.700 out on

00:23:32.360 the floor

00:23:32.860 of,

00:23:33.340 I don't

00:23:33.700 know if

00:23:33.920 there will

00:23:34.880 even be a

00:23:35.400 physical

00:23:35.760 convention,

00:23:36.420 but let's

00:23:36.620 say there

00:23:36.880 is.

00:23:37.340 It would

00:23:37.540 be one

00:23:37.840 thing to

00:23:38.140 argue it

00:23:38.640 out among

00:23:39.860 their members

00:23:40.460 on the

00:23:40.820 floor because

00:23:41.840 that would

00:23:42.140 feel like a

00:23:42.660 process of

00:23:43.340 some sort,

00:23:43.960 even if you

00:23:44.440 didn't get

00:23:44.820 your way.

00:23:45.800 You'd feel

00:23:46.220 like,

00:23:46.520 all right,

00:23:47.800 the people

00:23:48.340 who cared

00:23:48.760 the most

00:23:49.260 in my

00:23:49.600 party,

00:23:50.080 they all

00:23:50.320 went to

00:23:50.580 one place

00:23:51.280 or they

00:23:51.740 were online

00:23:52.240 or they

00:23:52.660 do it,

00:23:52.980 they argued,

00:23:54.120 they worked

00:23:54.440 it out,

00:23:54.800 they negotiated,

00:23:55.620 well, at

00:23:56.000 least it's a

00:23:56.460 process.

00:23:57.760 I don't

00:23:58.180 love the

00:23:58.520 outcome,

00:23:59.580 but at

00:23:59.900 least I

00:24:00.680 see how it

00:24:01.200 happened and

00:24:01.920 got a little

00:24:02.680 bit of

00:24:02.960 visibility,

00:24:03.820 okay, I

00:24:04.220 can live

00:24:04.540 with it.

00:24:04.820 but if

00:24:07.080 they replaced

00:24:07.620 him before

00:24:08.240 that, if

00:24:10.380 they found

00:24:10.800 some clever

00:24:11.700 way to

00:24:12.040 say, hey,

00:24:12.580 Joe, just

00:24:13.100 say you're

00:24:14.020 not feeling

00:24:14.440 good and

00:24:15.080 we'll just

00:24:16.140 slot somebody

00:24:16.760 in there

00:24:17.080 right away,

00:24:18.280 I don't

00:24:20.200 think they

00:24:20.640 could do

00:24:20.960 it before

00:24:21.620 because as

00:24:23.300 long as he's

00:24:24.040 still able to

00:24:25.520 appear in

00:24:26.040 public and

00:24:26.580 put three

00:24:27.220 words together,

00:24:28.020 they don't

00:24:28.280 even have to

00:24:28.760 make sense,

00:24:29.840 and we've

00:24:30.200 seen that,

00:24:30.680 right?

00:24:30.820 He literally

00:24:33.200 doesn't even

00:24:33.740 have to make

00:24:34.140 sense when

00:24:34.760 he talks,

00:24:35.760 and the

00:24:36.100 Democrats are

00:24:36.720 still willing

00:24:37.240 to say,

00:24:37.720 well, it's

00:24:38.020 okay, let's

00:24:39.540 let this play

00:24:40.360 out a little

00:24:40.700 bit.

00:24:42.520 I would

00:24:43.580 love to

00:24:43.960 know what

00:24:45.020 they're

00:24:45.280 thinking,

00:24:46.120 the just

00:24:47.100 mainstream

00:24:47.640 Democrats who

00:24:49.120 don't want

00:24:49.640 anything except

00:24:50.500 what's good

00:24:51.020 for the

00:24:51.340 country, and

00:24:52.520 they just

00:24:53.060 want a

00:24:55.280 credible

00:24:55.780 candidate to

00:24:56.780 be able to

00:24:57.460 vote for

00:24:58.160 them, and

00:24:58.920 they're looking

00:24:59.340 at what their

00:24:59.840 party served

00:25:00.600 them up as

00:25:01.220 their choice.

00:25:02.860 It's got to

00:25:03.680 be terribly

00:25:05.040 frustrating, so

00:25:07.080 I wonder

00:25:07.420 about that

00:25:07.920 internal

00:25:08.280 process.

00:25:10.820 But here's

00:25:11.400 my prediction

00:25:13.060 based on

00:25:13.660 what has

00:25:14.060 the least

00:25:16.420 friction.

00:25:17.940 So here's

00:25:18.720 the least

00:25:19.280 friction way

00:25:20.240 to go.

00:25:21.320 Joe Biden

00:25:21.960 picks, maybe

00:25:23.000 even early

00:25:23.640 before the

00:25:24.200 convention,

00:25:25.460 picks a

00:25:26.180 vice

00:25:26.900 presidential

00:25:27.380 running mate,

00:25:28.480 because if he

00:25:29.180 assumes he's

00:25:29.960 going to get

00:25:30.360 the nomination,

00:25:31.860 he could

00:25:32.360 sort of

00:25:32.940 presumptively

00:25:33.560 say, let's

00:25:34.100 get this

00:25:34.480 out of the

00:25:34.780 way, give 0.60

00:25:36.000 you voters a

00:25:36.660 little comfort

00:25:37.220 about what's

00:25:37.940 coming, I'll

00:25:38.960 just pick my

00:25:39.560 vice president.

00:25:40.840 I think at

00:25:41.380 that point,

00:25:41.920 whoever that

00:25:42.380 vice presidential

00:25:43.040 pick is,

00:25:44.060 assuming it's

00:25:44.760 somebody you

00:25:45.260 could reasonably

00:25:45.920 see as

00:25:46.460 qualified to be

00:25:47.240 president,

00:25:48.740 that Joe

00:25:50.120 Biden could

00:25:50.660 then just go

00:25:51.440 through the

00:25:52.180 charade of

00:25:55.600 running for

00:25:56.080 office, but

00:25:57.580 voters would

00:25:58.160 say, we're

00:25:59.020 voting for

00:26:00.140 the vice

00:26:00.540 president.

00:26:01.860 In our

00:26:02.440 minds, that's

00:26:03.440 really who

00:26:03.840 we're voting

00:26:04.260 for.

00:26:05.320 So it

00:26:05.580 feels like,

00:26:07.120 and then

00:26:07.660 maybe sometime

00:26:08.920 between now

00:26:09.840 and the

00:26:10.640 convention, it

00:26:11.840 wouldn't be so

00:26:12.500 hard to flip

00:26:13.200 the party and

00:26:14.520 say, hey,

00:26:15.060 let's take the

00:26:16.300 vice president,

00:26:17.060 put the vice

00:26:17.540 president pick at

00:26:18.260 the top, because

00:26:19.600 the vice

00:26:19.980 president was,

00:26:20.880 after all,

00:26:21.200 picked by the

00:26:21.740 person who had

00:26:22.300 the most votes.

00:26:23.680 And then maybe

00:26:24.440 you could let

00:26:25.220 Joe Biden

00:26:27.600 slide off and

00:26:28.580 say he's not

00:26:29.300 feeling well, and

00:26:30.380 it's all very

00:26:31.960 elegant.

00:26:33.040 So I think it's

00:26:33.680 going to be the

00:26:34.120 vice president

00:26:34.780 switcheroo would

00:26:35.840 be the least

00:26:36.840 friction way for 0.96

00:26:37.880 the Democrats to

00:26:38.620 get what they

00:26:39.040 want, which is

00:26:40.260 somebody else at

00:26:40.900 the top of the

00:26:41.400 ticket.

00:26:41.880 So that's my

00:26:42.340 prediction.

00:26:43.060 All right.

00:26:44.100 Let me ask you

00:26:44.940 this.

00:26:45.900 If China believed

00:26:47.260 that the wet

00:26:47.880 markets were

00:26:49.360 actually the

00:26:50.040 source of the

00:26:50.760 coronavirus, would

00:26:53.000 they keep them

00:26:53.620 open?

00:26:55.220 Now, there

00:26:55.940 might be

00:26:56.240 something about

00:26:56.860 China that I

00:26:57.560 don't understand.

00:26:58.880 I'm sure there

00:26:59.480 are lots of

00:26:59.860 things about

00:27:00.280 China I don't 1.00

00:27:00.840 understand.

00:27:02.200 But on a

00:27:03.180 risk-reward

00:27:03.940 basis, if you

00:27:05.540 looked at the

00:27:06.000 entire GDP of

00:27:07.540 China, how

00:27:09.600 much of the

00:27:10.180 entire GDP of

00:27:11.440 China would be 1.00

00:27:12.220 represented by

00:27:13.900 the economic

00:27:15.340 activity of the

00:27:16.540 wet markets?

00:27:18.640 1%?

00:27:20.440 0.00001%?

00:27:23.800 there can't

00:27:25.500 possibly be any

00:27:26.560 serious economic

00:27:27.780 impact of

00:27:29.500 keeping the

00:27:30.120 wet markets

00:27:30.740 open.

00:27:32.080 But at least

00:27:33.840 in terms of the

00:27:34.480 upside gain of

00:27:35.320 making money, it

00:27:36.140 can't be that much

00:27:36.960 money involved.

00:27:37.960 How big are

00:27:38.760 these wet markets?

00:27:40.340 I mean, I don't

00:27:40.760 know enough about

00:27:41.380 the area, but it

00:27:42.860 can't be that big,

00:27:44.480 right?

00:27:44.860 But the risk of

00:27:49.160 keeping them

00:27:49.720 open is so

00:27:50.800 well understood.

00:27:52.380 Because if this

00:27:53.160 is indeed the

00:27:53.900 second time that

00:27:54.700 something came out

00:27:55.400 of that same

00:27:55.860 environment, this

00:27:57.260 time closing down

00:27:58.260 the economies of

00:27:59.080 the world, is

00:28:00.400 there any

00:28:01.060 argument that

00:28:02.080 China could make 0.97

00:28:02.900 for keeping them

00:28:03.660 open?

00:28:04.600 Let's put it this

00:28:05.500 way.

00:28:05.760 Suppose we went

00:28:06.520 to China and we

00:28:07.420 said, hey, China, 0.85

00:28:08.780 here's the deal.

00:28:10.060 We're just going to

00:28:11.220 decouple and move

00:28:12.220 everything home and

00:28:13.140 stop trading with

00:28:13.980 you because we

00:28:15.120 need to completely

00:28:16.040 close travel because

00:28:18.120 we can't have any

00:28:19.120 kind of physical

00:28:20.040 connection to a

00:28:20.920 country that has

00:28:21.660 wet markets because

00:28:23.520 they're too risky

00:28:24.120 for the other

00:28:24.760 countries.

00:28:26.000 What would China 0.56

00:28:26.680 say?

00:28:27.960 Would they say,

00:28:28.720 oh, okay, we

00:28:29.780 don't want to lose

00:28:30.300 our whole economy,

00:28:31.120 so we'll just

00:28:31.620 close these wet

00:28:32.300 markets?

00:28:33.320 So here's my

00:28:33.960 question.

00:28:35.160 Is China not 0.98

00:28:36.280 signaling to the

00:28:37.220 world that they

00:28:37.980 don't believe the

00:28:38.720 wet markets were

00:28:39.460 the problem?

00:28:40.920 Because you can't

00:28:41.920 do these two

00:28:43.080 things that they've

00:28:43.880 done, which

00:28:45.060 is say, oh,

00:28:45.620 yeah, the

00:28:46.640 problem that

00:28:47.240 almost killed

00:28:48.640 millions of

00:28:49.260 people and did

00:28:50.500 kill, I don't

00:28:51.100 know, hundreds of 0.70

00:28:51.660 thousands when it's

00:28:52.340 all done, you

00:28:54.800 can't say we're

00:28:55.460 going to keep it

00:28:55.920 open if you think

00:28:57.460 that's what the

00:28:57.980 problem was.

00:28:59.140 Now, yeah,

00:29:00.060 somebody's saying

00:29:00.640 in the comments

00:29:01.140 it's a cultural

00:29:01.820 thing.

00:29:02.940 Maybe.

00:29:04.720 Maybe what I

00:29:05.600 don't understand is

00:29:06.580 the cultural

00:29:07.120 importance.

00:29:08.020 But the Chinese 1.00

00:29:09.020 Communist Party

00:29:10.020 is pretty

00:29:10.920 cold-blooded

00:29:11.980 engineering

00:29:12.880 efficiency.

00:29:14.660 And there's

00:29:15.480 nothing that I

00:29:16.360 could imagine

00:29:17.180 where these

00:29:17.860 cold-blooded

00:29:18.760 engineering

00:29:19.460 efficient

00:29:20.320 technocrats

00:29:22.240 are going to

00:29:22.960 risk trillions

00:29:25.120 of dollars again

00:29:26.160 for what would

00:29:28.000 be the smallest

00:29:28.920 economic benefit

00:29:30.440 of these little

00:29:31.140 wet markets that

00:29:31.960 can't possibly be a

00:29:32.900 good idea.

00:29:33.340 So I think

00:29:35.660 China has 0.91

00:29:36.120 basically signaled

00:29:37.200 that they are

00:29:37.900 not willing to

00:29:39.400 be a credible

00:29:42.160 partner in the

00:29:42.980 world.

00:29:43.580 There's a line

00:29:45.240 below which,

00:29:46.760 if you're below

00:29:47.380 the line of

00:29:48.100 credibility, you

00:29:49.420 just can't work

00:29:50.140 with those people.

00:29:51.900 You have to just

00:29:52.860 make a choice and

00:29:53.600 say, you know,

00:29:54.880 nothing personal,

00:29:56.260 but we can't

00:29:56.960 work with that.

00:29:58.820 Whatever you're

00:29:59.800 doing over there,

00:30:00.860 it's nothing

00:30:01.400 personal, but we

00:30:02.800 can't expose

00:30:04.020 ourselves to

00:30:04.780 that risk

00:30:05.220 anymore, so we

00:30:06.300 have to do

00:30:06.680 what we need

00:30:07.160 to do.

00:30:11.700 So I love

00:30:12.920 this comment

00:30:13.820 from Lauren

00:30:15.660 Pleska, I

00:30:16.740 think from some

00:30:17.380 other country on

00:30:18.140 Twitter, dropped

00:30:19.900 into my comments

00:30:21.080 to mock me,

00:30:22.620 because I was

00:30:23.160 making some

00:30:23.700 comments about

00:30:24.280 the models,

00:30:25.160 the same kind

00:30:25.760 of comments I

00:30:26.280 was just making

00:30:26.840 here, I was

00:30:28.020 making on

00:30:28.460 Twitter, and

00:30:29.840 Lauren goes in

00:30:30.760 to say, and

00:30:32.180 it's better if

00:30:32.700 I say it in

00:30:33.220 a mocking

00:30:33.640 tone, that

00:30:35.780 thing when a

00:30:36.440 guy who draws

00:30:37.180 a cartoon

00:30:37.940 thinks he

00:30:39.180 knows more

00:30:39.820 than epidemiologists

00:30:42.900 or people who

00:30:43.720 can pronounce

00:30:44.280 that word, I

00:30:44.760 guess, epidemiologists

00:30:46.300 about modeling

00:30:47.580 infectious disease

00:30:48.860 spread.

00:30:50.100 Ha, ha, ha,

00:30:51.420 look at the

00:30:52.360 cartoonist, that

00:30:53.680 guy who draws

00:30:54.320 a cartoon thinks

00:30:55.100 he knows more

00:30:55.680 than epidemiologists

00:30:56.920 about modeling

00:30:57.760 infectious diseases.

00:30:59.140 Oh, it is to

00:31:00.820 laugh. 0.93

00:31:02.100 How silly that 0.94

00:31:03.580 the cartoonist 0.97

00:31:04.440 thinks he knows

00:31:05.760 more than all

00:31:06.880 the expert

00:31:07.520 doctors in the

00:31:08.320 world.

00:31:09.440 Well, you

00:31:09.820 know, Lauren,

00:31:12.360 that would not

00:31:13.160 look like such 1.00

00:31:14.340 an ignorant 0.97

00:31:14.840 comment if it 0.99

00:31:16.720 didn't happen

00:31:17.140 this week.

00:31:18.520 This was the

00:31:19.480 week in which

00:31:20.940 all of the

00:31:21.440 medical experts

00:31:22.220 in the world

00:31:22.720 finally said,

00:31:24.220 yeah, the

00:31:24.600 cartoonist was

00:31:25.460 right.

00:31:26.500 Now, they

00:31:26.880 didn't use those

00:31:27.620 words, but

00:31:29.760 who was it

00:31:31.040 who told you

00:31:31.580 face masks

00:31:32.300 really do

00:31:33.060 work for

00:31:34.260 lay people

00:31:34.800 when CDC

00:31:36.600 and WHO

00:31:37.380 and the

00:31:37.740 Surgeon General

00:31:38.400 and Dr.

00:31:39.620 Fauci told

00:31:41.060 you they

00:31:41.360 don't?

00:31:43.160 It was the

00:31:43.980 cartoonist.

00:31:45.420 It was the

00:31:45.880 cartoonist.

00:31:46.700 Now, it was

00:31:47.040 also many of

00:31:47.700 you because

00:31:48.220 common sense

00:31:48.900 got you to

00:31:49.380 the same

00:31:50.080 place.

00:31:51.220 But,

00:31:52.520 Lauren,

00:31:53.860 if your

00:31:54.760 point is that

00:31:55.600 the cartoonist

00:31:56.500 cannot have

00:31:57.860 an opinion

00:31:58.260 which is

00:31:58.840 superior to

00:31:59.560 all of the

00:32:00.080 experts in

00:32:01.200 the world,

00:32:02.180 I don't think

00:32:03.060 you're paying

00:32:03.400 attention.

00:32:04.500 Because I

00:32:04.860 just did

00:32:05.540 that in

00:32:07.180 public.

00:32:08.280 I did it

00:32:09.280 aggressively in

00:32:10.220 public.

00:32:10.740 I disagreed

00:32:11.380 with all the

00:32:11.860 experts in

00:32:12.400 public,

00:32:14.280 shamelessly.

00:32:16.240 And we

00:32:16.820 know, because

00:32:18.140 all the

00:32:18.500 experts have

00:32:19.020 now said,

00:32:19.420 yeah, yeah,

00:32:19.820 you're right,

00:32:20.880 cartoonist

00:32:21.500 guy.

00:32:21.960 They didn't,

00:32:22.580 of course,

00:32:22.880 refer to me,

00:32:24.000 but they've

00:32:24.520 all come around

00:32:25.080 to my point

00:32:25.580 of you.

00:32:26.780 Am I

00:32:27.120 right?

00:32:28.220 Yes, I

00:32:28.660 am.

00:32:30.120 So, let

00:32:32.400 me say

00:32:32.720 this.

00:32:35.840 And how

00:32:36.420 about the

00:32:36.740 experts,

00:32:37.840 how about

00:32:38.300 the medical

00:32:38.800 experts who

00:32:39.420 told you

00:32:39.820 that because

00:32:41.400 we don't

00:32:41.920 know exactly

00:32:42.800 the

00:32:44.320 hydroxychloroquine

00:32:45.580 test results,

00:32:47.500 that you

00:32:47.800 shouldn't use

00:32:48.260 them.

00:32:51.940 Right?

00:32:52.560 Didn't you

00:32:53.180 have experts

00:32:53.720 saying we

00:32:54.240 don't have

00:32:54.620 the test

00:32:55.440 results so

00:32:56.080 it's dangerous

00:32:56.740 so you

00:32:57.940 shouldn't use

00:32:58.400 the hydroxychloroquine

00:32:59.520 because it

00:33:00.800 hasn't been

00:33:01.380 tested through

00:33:02.360 the test

00:33:03.020 results.

00:33:03.900 The medical

00:33:04.640 experts told

00:33:05.320 you that,

00:33:05.740 right?

00:33:06.140 Wasn't that

00:33:06.700 the epidemiologists

00:33:08.320 and everybody

00:33:09.180 else?

00:33:10.160 And what did

00:33:10.640 the cartoonist

00:33:11.320 say?

00:33:12.380 The cartoonist

00:33:13.360 disagreed to

00:33:14.080 that and

00:33:14.480 said,

00:33:15.280 well,

00:33:15.440 wait a minute.

00:33:16.520 If these

00:33:17.060 drugs have

00:33:17.520 been around

00:33:17.900 so long

00:33:18.640 that we

00:33:19.180 know which

00:33:19.680 people have

00:33:20.240 a risk and

00:33:20.860 which do

00:33:21.200 not,

00:33:21.620 for example,

00:33:22.060 people with

00:33:23.180 heart problems

00:33:23.860 and people

00:33:24.400 with hypertension

00:33:26.760 have a little

00:33:28.040 extra risk.

00:33:29.040 And we also

00:33:29.680 know that

00:33:30.720 it's a long

00:33:31.400 term use

00:33:31.980 risk and

00:33:32.540 we're not

00:33:32.960 contemplating

00:33:33.580 using it

00:33:33.920 for long

00:33:34.740 term.

00:33:35.880 Under those

00:33:36.760 conditions,

00:33:37.960 said the

00:33:38.520 cartoonist,

00:33:39.460 it's probably

00:33:40.660 still a good

00:33:41.300 bet because

00:33:42.640 even if it

00:33:43.280 doesn't help,

00:33:44.440 we can be

00:33:45.120 pretty sure it

00:33:45.740 doesn't hurt

00:33:46.380 and there's so

00:33:47.200 much anecdotal

00:33:48.120 information that

00:33:49.400 at least it

00:33:49.900 suggests there's a

00:33:50.740 non-zero chance

00:33:51.700 it could be

00:33:52.120 helpful.

00:33:53.040 So on a

00:33:53.460 risk-reward

00:33:54.160 basis,

00:33:55.560 who was

00:33:56.080 right?

00:33:57.180 Every medical

00:33:58.060 expert who

00:33:58.820 told you,

00:33:59.300 no,

00:33:59.700 you don't want

00:34:00.480 to use this

00:34:00.960 because it's

00:34:01.360 unproven,

00:34:02.380 or the

00:34:04.080 cartoonist?

00:34:05.620 The cartoonist.

00:34:07.060 Because the

00:34:07.660 medical experts

00:34:08.500 pretty much,

00:34:10.360 when they were

00:34:10.920 already,

00:34:11.460 you know,

00:34:11.800 undercover,

00:34:12.500 they were

00:34:12.760 already turning

00:34:13.420 my way,

00:34:14.360 which is to

00:34:14.960 say,

00:34:15.260 well,

00:34:15.460 we don't know

00:34:15.920 if it'll

00:34:16.200 work,

00:34:16.540 but it's

00:34:16.800 worth a shot

00:34:17.420 on a risk-reward

00:34:18.360 basis.

00:34:19.200 So who was

00:34:19.680 right?

00:34:20.000 All of

00:34:21.100 the medical

00:34:21.540 experts in

00:34:22.180 the world,

00:34:23.400 the CDC,

00:34:24.960 the Surgeon

00:34:25.480 General,

00:34:26.600 were they

00:34:27.040 right?

00:34:27.920 Was it

00:34:28.360 the World

00:34:29.440 Health

00:34:29.760 Organization

00:34:30.360 that was

00:34:30.880 right?

00:34:31.480 Or was

00:34:32.140 it the

00:34:33.160 cartoonist?

00:34:34.560 It was

00:34:35.280 the cartoonist

00:34:36.080 and everybody

00:34:36.800 else who had

00:34:37.340 the same

00:34:37.660 opinion who

00:34:38.200 was not a

00:34:38.680 medical expert.

00:34:40.020 It was

00:34:40.440 President Trump.

00:34:41.760 Is President

00:34:42.400 Trump's 1.00

00:34:43.000 stupid old, 1.00

00:34:44.760 dumb old 1.00

00:34:45.380 President Trump 1.00

00:34:46.120 who doesn't

00:34:46.600 believe in

00:34:47.080 science,

00:34:47.560 was his

00:34:48.760 opinion about

00:34:49.520 hydroxychloroquine

00:34:50.740 superior to

00:34:53.220 what was

00:34:53.560 coming from

00:34:54.080 the top

00:34:54.580 medical experts?

00:34:55.660 Yes.

00:34:56.060 Yes,

00:34:56.280 it was.

00:34:57.020 We can see

00:34:57.760 that plainly

00:34:58.620 because both

00:35:00.080 the medical

00:35:00.560 experts and

00:35:01.180 Trump exactly

00:35:02.320 agreed that

00:35:03.840 it's unproven.

00:35:04.660 It would be

00:35:05.460 better if it

00:35:05.980 were proven.

00:35:06.980 There's some

00:35:07.620 anecdotal evidence

00:35:08.480 that works,

00:35:09.460 but that's not

00:35:10.740 a guarantee,

00:35:11.800 but the risk-reward

00:35:12.920 is still worth it.

00:35:13.760 That came

00:35:15.040 from the

00:35:15.380 president.

00:35:16.600 That didn't

00:35:17.160 come from

00:35:17.500 the medical

00:35:17.920 community.

00:35:18.760 That came

00:35:19.280 from a

00:35:19.640 cartoonist.

00:35:20.860 It didn't

00:35:21.360 come from

00:35:21.720 the medical

00:35:22.100 community.

00:35:23.000 But now

00:35:23.540 what is the

00:35:24.060 medical community

00:35:24.960 coming around

00:35:25.640 to?

00:35:25.900 Oh, yeah,

00:35:26.340 that was more

00:35:26.780 about shortages.

00:35:28.420 Yeah, we

00:35:29.100 knew that.

00:35:30.060 We knew it

00:35:30.840 was about

00:35:31.200 shortages.

00:35:31.940 We knew you

00:35:32.380 were lying.

00:35:33.640 We knew

00:35:34.080 that you

00:35:34.320 were being

00:35:34.640 irrational

00:35:35.120 for whatever

00:35:35.980 that reason

00:35:36.700 was to

00:35:37.220 prevent the

00:35:37.700 shortages

00:35:38.060 and the

00:35:38.400 hoarding.

00:35:40.020 But

00:35:40.260 Lauren,

00:35:41.560 Lauren

00:35:43.720 Pleska,

00:35:45.160 any other

00:35:46.800 year,

00:35:47.900 it would

00:35:48.560 be reasonable

00:35:49.160 for you

00:35:49.620 to say,

00:35:50.320 oh, yeah,

00:35:51.420 let's believe

00:35:51.900 the cartoonists,

00:35:52.840 not the

00:35:53.160 medical experts.

00:35:54.320 Let's believe

00:35:54.780 the cartoonists.

00:35:55.540 That makes

00:35:55.900 sense.

00:35:56.340 Yeah, that

00:35:57.280 makes sense.

00:35:58.160 Any other

00:35:58.960 year, that

00:35:59.800 would have

00:36:00.080 been a

00:36:00.340 reasonable

00:36:00.740 mocking

00:36:01.240 thing to

00:36:01.820 say.

00:36:02.640 But you're

00:36:03.160 saying it

00:36:03.480 right in

00:36:03.820 the middle

00:36:04.240 of me

00:36:05.580 proving in

00:36:06.340 public that

00:36:07.300 my opinions

00:36:07.860 are superior

00:36:08.520 to the

00:36:10.180 medical

00:36:10.440 professionals.

00:36:11.560 Now, do

00:36:12.020 you need

00:36:12.260 another

00:36:12.520 example?

00:36:13.840 How about

00:36:14.240 the example

00:36:14.760 where I'm

00:36:15.380 the only

00:36:15.700 one who

00:36:16.040 said that

00:36:16.540 the low

00:36:17.180 number is

00:36:17.920 going to

00:36:18.160 be below

00:36:18.580 the models?

00:36:20.120 Did I

00:36:20.600 not, as

00:36:21.860 not being

00:36:22.360 an epidemiologist

00:36:23.620 and not being

00:36:24.380 a virologist

00:36:25.300 and not being

00:36:25.760 a medical

00:36:26.100 expert, was

00:36:27.320 I not

00:36:27.800 loudly and

00:36:28.480 publicly saying

00:36:29.240 that I

00:36:29.620 believe the

00:36:30.040 numbers would

00:36:30.540 come in well

00:36:31.140 under the

00:36:31.820 bottom estimate?

00:36:33.680 Who was

00:36:34.380 right?

00:36:35.000 All of the

00:36:35.780 experts in

00:36:36.360 the world?

00:36:37.700 Or the

00:36:38.360 cartoonist?

00:36:39.180 Who was

00:36:39.540 right?

00:36:39.860 The cartoonist

00:36:40.520 or the

00:36:40.860 experts?

00:36:42.080 Lauren?

00:36:43.720 So, at

00:36:45.480 least pay a

00:36:46.140 little bit of

00:36:46.680 attention to

00:36:47.180 who's being

00:36:47.520 right.

00:36:48.900 Okay?

00:36:49.620 I totally

00:36:50.580 get that you

00:36:52.160 should not

00:36:52.560 ignore experts.

00:36:53.640 Even I don't

00:36:54.200 ignore experts as

00:36:55.280 much as I

00:36:55.740 complain about

00:36:56.360 it.

00:36:56.940 Even I take

00:36:57.720 experts as the

00:36:58.600 first, you

00:36:59.720 know, that's

00:37:00.020 the first

00:37:00.440 position.

00:37:01.580 And if you're

00:37:02.100 going to

00:37:02.300 deviate from

00:37:02.980 what the

00:37:03.340 experts are

00:37:03.880 saying, you

00:37:04.160 have a good

00:37:04.600 reason.

00:37:05.600 You're going

00:37:05.940 to need a

00:37:06.320 pretty good

00:37:06.960 reason if

00:37:07.480 you're going

00:37:07.760 to disagree

00:37:08.300 with a

00:37:08.920 consensus

00:37:09.740 of experts,

00:37:10.680 but I

00:37:11.760 show my

00:37:12.160 work.

00:37:13.460 You can

00:37:14.000 decide.

00:37:16.380 All right.

00:37:17.460 Wow, I think

00:37:18.240 I've beat

00:37:19.300 that to

00:37:19.760 death.

00:37:20.080 here's another

00:37:23.800 example of 0.99

00:37:24.320 loser think 0.96

00:37:24.880 from Rachel 0.99

00:37:27.480 Maddow.

00:37:28.640 So, she

00:37:29.040 was responding

00:37:29.620 to the

00:37:30.820 attorney general

00:37:31.480 had a tweet

00:37:32.100 about, you

00:37:32.820 know, about

00:37:33.920 America needing

00:37:34.880 to get back

00:37:35.440 to work.

00:37:36.760 All right, so

00:37:37.020 the attorney

00:37:37.380 general was

00:37:37.960 making sort

00:37:38.460 of a general

00:37:39.400 statement about

00:37:41.820 we need to

00:37:42.960 get back to

00:37:43.540 work.

00:37:44.160 He was not

00:37:44.940 putting a

00:37:46.020 day on it.

00:37:47.140 He was not

00:37:47.780 saying, let's

00:37:49.080 forget about

00:37:49.660 the people

00:37:50.100 who will

00:37:50.440 die, because

00:37:51.060 he wasn't 0.99

00:37:51.520 saying that.

00:37:52.540 He was

00:37:52.840 making a

00:37:53.360 general

00:37:53.720 universally

00:37:54.380 true statement

00:37:55.240 that we

00:37:55.680 would all

00:37:56.000 like to

00:37:56.320 get back

00:37:56.640 to work.

00:37:57.740 No real

00:37:58.380 detail.

00:37:59.960 Rachel Maddow

00:38:00.620 decides to

00:38:01.260 mock him for

00:38:01.960 that universally

00:38:02.800 true statement

00:38:03.660 that everybody

00:38:04.200 agrees on, and

00:38:06.520 she says it

00:38:07.040 this way in

00:38:07.460 her tweet.

00:38:08.440 More than

00:38:08.800 14,000

00:38:09.780 Americans have 0.78

00:38:10.560 already died.

00:38:12.400 One American

00:38:13.120 died every

00:38:14.320 45 seconds

00:38:15.560 today.

00:38:17.320 But sure,

00:38:18.440 Mr.

00:38:18.760 Attorney General,

00:38:19.660 yeah, go

00:38:20.900 on, yeah, go

00:38:22.360 on about

00:38:22.780 this, get

00:38:23.160 back to

00:38:23.520 work.

00:38:26.380 Here's the 0.62

00:38:26.960 loser thing. 0.91

00:38:27.960 It's one 0.99

00:38:28.700 variable thinking.

00:38:30.100 If the only

00:38:30.700 variable we had

00:38:31.500 to worry about

00:38:32.040 is how many

00:38:32.560 people were

00:38:33.140 dying, well,

00:38:35.120 I'd say get

00:38:35.640 back to work,

00:38:36.460 or how many

00:38:37.000 people are

00:38:37.340 dying specifically

00:38:38.160 from the

00:38:38.700 coronavirus,

00:38:39.920 then Rachel

00:38:40.480 Maddow would

00:38:41.040 have a world

00:38:41.780 class, excellent

00:38:42.680 opinion here.

00:38:43.840 And it would

00:38:44.140 be the sort

00:38:44.560 of thing she

00:38:44.980 should be proud

00:38:45.660 to show to

00:38:46.160 the world.

00:38:47.660 But if

00:38:48.780 you're in a

00:38:49.140 situation that

00:38:49.720 has many

00:38:50.120 variables, and

00:38:51.400 you've got the

00:38:51.980 economic pain and

00:38:55.220 death that comes

00:38:55.880 with that, and

00:38:56.600 you've got the

00:38:57.260 healthcare coronavirus

00:38:58.560 death, and you've

00:39:00.000 got lots of

00:39:00.740 variables that

00:39:01.420 ties it all

00:39:01.960 together, the

00:39:02.560 psychology, the

00:39:03.440 economics, the

00:39:04.260 credit, this

00:39:06.620 world, the sea

00:39:07.600 of variables.

00:39:09.940 And Rachel

00:39:10.320 Maddow goes in

00:39:11.480 and she picks 0.96

00:39:11.960 out just one of

00:39:12.680 them, just one

00:39:13.900 of the important

00:39:14.440 variables, to

00:39:15.900 mock somebody who

00:39:17.500 may have

00:39:17.880 considered more

00:39:18.560 than one

00:39:18.940 variable.

00:39:20.700 If you want to

00:39:21.720 really be the

00:39:22.800 champion of 0.92

00:39:23.660 loser think, be 0.87

00:39:25.520 the person who 1.00

00:39:26.240 says only one

00:39:27.040 variable matters

00:39:27.920 in a big

00:39:28.560 multivariable

00:39:29.440 situation, and

00:39:30.760 then go in

00:39:31.280 public and mock

00:39:32.240 the people who

00:39:33.420 think it's a

00:39:34.040 multivariable

00:39:34.820 situation.

00:39:36.240 If you want

00:39:37.080 to reach the

00:39:39.300 peak of bad

00:39:41.460 thinking, Rachel

00:39:43.500 Maddow, you

00:39:44.720 have achieved

00:39:45.200 the summit.

00:39:47.380 All right.

00:39:48.760 Anything else

00:39:49.480 happening?

00:39:53.460 I keep

00:39:54.440 seeing questions

00:39:55.540 about Dr.

00:39:57.140 Shiva and

00:39:57.720 whether I agree

00:39:58.760 or disagree, so

00:39:59.840 I will reiterate

00:40:00.720 what I said

00:40:01.640 about that.

00:40:03.240 Dr.

00:40:03.860 Shiva has a

00:40:04.500 whole range of

00:40:05.280 opinions within

00:40:06.820 this category of

00:40:08.080 the coronavirus

00:40:08.560 stuff, and I

00:40:09.180 don't know which

00:40:09.960 ones you find

00:40:12.120 controversial or

00:40:13.980 you would like

00:40:14.520 my opinion on.

00:40:15.600 So if you

00:40:15.980 want to be more

00:40:16.480 specific, put it

00:40:17.760 in the form of

00:40:18.320 a statement.

00:40:19.780 Dr.

00:40:20.160 Shiva says X. 0.78

00:40:22.680 What do you

00:40:23.120 think?

00:40:23.940 So I'd be happy

00:40:24.680 to give you an

00:40:25.180 opinion on that,

00:40:25.840 but you have to

00:40:26.220 narrow it down a

00:40:26.820 little bit.

00:40:27.840 I've sort of

00:40:28.680 skimmed his

00:40:29.880 opinions, and I

00:40:30.620 didn't see anything

00:40:31.500 that far out of

00:40:33.920 what I would

00:40:35.100 think.

00:40:35.500 I didn't see

00:40:35.980 anything that

00:40:36.420 shocked me, so I

00:40:37.880 don't know what

00:40:38.240 you're talking

00:40:38.560 about exactly.

00:40:42.900 Want to hear a

00:40:43.800 Linda Tripp

00:40:44.500 story?

00:40:46.660 So here's one

00:40:48.400 of the weird

00:40:48.780 things about my

00:40:49.640 life, and I

00:40:51.260 noticed this about

00:40:52.260 other people as

00:40:53.040 well.

00:40:53.380 Have you ever

00:40:53.720 noticed there

00:40:54.300 are some people

00:40:55.080 who, for

00:40:56.880 completely, or at

00:40:58.020 least what it

00:40:58.400 looks like to be

00:40:59.000 coincidences, often

00:41:00.660 find themselves to

00:41:01.840 be somehow attached

00:41:03.520 to the biggest

00:41:04.180 stories in the

00:41:04.860 world?

00:41:05.820 Have you ever

00:41:06.100 noticed that?

00:41:06.600 there's some

00:41:07.420 people who just

00:41:08.740 go through their

00:41:09.300 life, and they're

00:41:10.240 not even trying to

00:41:11.160 do it, but

00:41:11.660 suddenly they get

00:41:12.340 somehow attached

00:41:13.920 to, or their

00:41:15.060 brother is doing

00:41:16.580 something, or their

00:41:18.140 spouse is on

00:41:18.960 something.

00:41:19.740 They're always just

00:41:20.620 connected to the

00:41:22.320 biggest stories in

00:41:23.120 the world.

00:41:24.300 Have you ever

00:41:24.560 noticed that?

00:41:25.400 It's like this

00:41:26.200 weird pattern that

00:41:27.080 can't be explained.

00:41:27.820 Now I assume it's

00:41:28.320 just confirmation

00:41:29.460 bias and selective

00:41:30.720 memory and stuff,

00:41:31.900 but it's one of

00:41:32.620 those fun things

00:41:33.700 about reality that

00:41:34.520 looks like that.

00:41:35.200 And I'm one of

00:41:35.820 those people.

00:41:37.140 So I observe it

00:41:38.400 in others, but I

00:41:39.340 observe it in

00:41:39.820 myself as well, that

00:41:41.200 the number of times

00:41:41.960 I'm connected to a

00:41:43.080 major story, it's

00:41:44.800 just sort of weird.

00:41:45.660 And the Linda 0.58

00:41:46.140 Tripp one is one of 0.63

00:41:47.300 those examples.

00:41:48.900 So, and there's no

00:41:50.760 importance to the

00:41:51.500 story, it's just an

00:41:52.260 interesting connection.

00:41:54.100 So Linda Tripp, if 1.00

00:41:55.280 you remember, she

00:41:57.320 had her knowledge

00:41:58.500 about what Monica

00:41:59.420 Lewinsky was up

00:42:00.700 to, and she didn't

00:42:01.820 know what to do

00:42:02.360 with it.

00:42:03.180 And she sought

00:42:04.000 advice.

00:42:04.840 Now here's the

00:42:06.360 interesting part.

00:42:07.020 The person she

00:42:07.840 sought advice from

00:42:09.280 was a book editor,

00:42:15.580 a publishing editor

00:42:16.860 kind of person.

00:42:18.220 person, and that

00:42:19.240 publishing editor kind

00:42:20.760 of person, I

00:42:22.180 happened to know.

00:42:23.520 So I actually

00:42:24.300 knew, I think she's

00:42:26.620 passed away, but I

00:42:28.000 knew the woman, the

00:42:30.300 agent that Linda Tripp

00:42:32.980 went to, and that

00:42:33.900 agent told her to make

00:42:35.340 her story public.

00:42:37.540 So that's the part of

00:42:40.320 the story you know, that

00:42:42.100 Linda Tripp had some

00:42:43.160 information, she got

00:42:44.340 some advice from a

00:42:45.900 publisher, the publisher

00:42:46.840 said, yeah, you should

00:42:47.720 take that public.

00:42:49.420 Here's the part you

00:42:50.260 don't know.

00:42:51.800 The person who gave

00:42:52.840 her that advice was a

00:42:53.880 huge anti-Clinton

00:42:55.340 person.

00:42:56.320 So the advice was not

00:42:57.560 unbiased, it was just

00:42:58.740 pure political advice to

00:43:00.120 take down a president.

00:43:01.900 Yes, it was Jonah

00:43:03.240 Goldberg's mother, that

00:43:04.320 is correct.

00:43:04.800 Now, Jonah Goldberg's

00:43:06.380 mother, who gave Linda

00:43:08.580 Tripp the advice, was

00:43:10.800 married to the, I

00:43:13.180 believe, the senior

00:43:13.940 vice president of my

00:43:15.280 cartoon syndication

00:43:16.420 company.

00:43:17.980 So I knew well the

00:43:20.860 husband, because I

00:43:22.380 worked with him as part

00:43:23.780 of my cartooning, so I

00:43:26.980 knew well the guy who

00:43:28.220 was married to the

00:43:30.440 woman who gave the 0.99

00:43:31.080 advice, and those two

00:43:32.960 people are the parents

00:43:33.840 of Jonah.

00:43:34.800 Goldberg, who I met at

00:43:36.760 an event during those

00:43:38.080 times.

00:43:39.040 So there's no real

00:43:40.380 point to the story,

00:43:41.440 except the number of

00:43:42.800 times I find myself, you

00:43:45.300 know, connected to a

00:43:46.580 story, and then, you

00:43:48.640 know, time goes by, and

00:43:49.920 most of you know that

00:43:51.240 Jake Tapper and I did a

00:43:52.900 thing where Jake is also

00:43:54.660 a cartoonist, and Jake

00:43:56.520 drew a week of Dilbert

00:43:58.160 comics that we used for a

00:43:59.980 charity for wounded

00:44:01.680 veterans.

00:44:02.140 and so we did that

00:44:03.240 twice.

00:44:04.340 So I have, you know, this

00:44:06.360 sort of, you know, working

00:44:07.900 professional connection

00:44:10.060 with Jake Tapper, who

00:44:11.900 also dated Monica

00:44:13.080 Lewinsky.

00:44:14.740 So in this weird way, I'm

00:44:16.880 just minding my own

00:44:17.880 business over in my life,

00:44:20.160 and I've got, you know,

00:44:21.600 two separate connections

00:44:22.880 to this whole Monica

00:44:24.380 Lewinsky story.

00:44:25.320 I mean, how random is

00:44:26.880 that?

00:44:27.680 It's not even six degrees.

00:44:29.320 It's like, you know, one

00:44:30.180 degree.

00:44:30.880 Or is it two?

00:44:32.460 However you count that.

00:44:37.480 All right.

00:44:41.740 Dr. Shiva, somebody says,

00:44:43.580 does not believe HIV causes

00:44:45.360 AIDS.

00:44:45.900 Well, I don't know about

00:44:46.760 anything in that topic.

00:44:48.300 But that's not what you

00:44:51.380 were asking me about, Dr.

00:44:52.520 Shiva.

00:45:01.720 Yeah.

00:45:02.900 And by the way, that's not a

00:45:04.200 secret or anything.

00:45:05.760 Jake has actually published,

00:45:07.460 I think, at least one article

00:45:08.740 in which he talked favorably

00:45:12.360 about Monica just being a good 1.00

00:45:14.080 person.

00:45:14.420 And by the way, as far as I

00:45:17.400 can tell, you know, we've

00:45:19.900 had a long time to observe

00:45:21.460 Monica Lewinsky in the public

00:45:23.020 eye, and I think we could say

00:45:24.780 she was a good person.

00:45:26.880 That's my observation.

00:45:28.020 She looks like a good person.

00:45:29.620 She was in a difficult

00:45:31.800 situation, but she just seems

00:45:34.400 like a good person to me.

00:45:39.820 All right.

00:45:41.940 Prediction on when California

00:45:43.280 will relax and stuff.

00:45:45.620 Well, I don't think anybody's

00:45:47.680 made a decision, but here's

00:45:49.600 what I did today to try to

00:45:50.800 move the ball forward.

00:45:51.720 So I tweeted today that I

00:45:54.020 think we should get back to

00:45:55.000 work whenever the experts

00:45:57.300 can tell us that doing so

00:45:59.620 would keep the death count from

00:46:01.180 coronavirus specifically below

00:46:02.920 50,000.

00:46:04.300 Now, here's why I'm doing it.

00:46:06.300 There's having spent many years

00:46:08.720 doing predictions and

00:46:10.500 estimating things and doing

00:46:11.900 budgets and that sort of

00:46:12.840 thing.

00:46:13.400 One of the things I learned is

00:46:14.780 that you can often estimate the

00:46:16.460 cost of something or the price

00:46:19.120 that somebody would be willing

00:46:20.260 to pay without knowing any

00:46:22.440 information about the topic.

00:46:24.840 Now, you say to yourself, well,

00:46:26.180 Sky, how is that possible?

00:46:27.580 How could you reasonably estimate

00:46:29.180 what somebody would pay for

00:46:30.240 something if you had very little

00:46:32.140 information about those people,

00:46:33.920 what they want, what the item is?

00:46:37.000 And I would say you need to know

00:46:38.900 something about it.

00:46:40.160 But here's how you can make

00:46:41.640 predictions without knowing much

00:46:43.800 about anything.

00:46:45.380 It goes like this.

00:46:47.400 Where you would feel comfortable is

00:46:50.160 probably not that far off from where

00:46:52.180 other people would feel comfortable.

00:46:54.280 So, for example, if somebody came to

00:46:56.080 you and said, I've developed this new

00:46:58.700 product.

00:46:59.220 It's a blank.

00:47:01.560 It has these functions and you want

00:47:03.720 it because of this reason.

00:47:04.760 It doesn't even matter what it is.

00:47:06.280 And you look at it and you say,

00:47:07.540 okay, what would you pay for this?

00:47:09.620 And so I hold it in my hands and I

00:47:11.280 look at all the features and I figure

00:47:12.820 out what it would do for me and I say

00:47:14.080 to myself, I would pay, I don't know,

00:47:17.800 50 bucks.

00:47:19.780 And what you would find is that you

00:47:21.240 could do this experiment all over the

00:47:23.100 country.

00:47:23.540 You'd probably have to keep it within

00:47:24.580 the country.

00:47:25.780 But you'd say, okay, hold this product.

00:47:28.000 Tell me what you would pay for it.

00:47:29.640 And people would say, I don't know,

00:47:31.580 60 bucks.

00:47:32.840 But you're going to find out they don't

00:47:34.140 say a thousand and they don't say

00:47:36.500 two dollars.

00:47:38.520 People have, for just psychological

00:47:41.360 reasons, for bias reasons, for

00:47:44.320 irrational reasons, we tend to gravitate

00:47:47.040 toward the same perceived price of

00:47:50.100 things.

00:47:51.860 There's no reason for it.

00:47:53.140 It's not based on being smart.

00:47:54.900 It's just a phenomena which I have,

00:47:56.720 you know, I've observed over the

00:47:58.580 years.

00:47:59.480 So, I believe that people will also

00:48:03.180 gravitate toward 50,000 for the

00:48:06.300 following reasons.

00:48:07.600 50,000 tends to be sort of a weird

00:48:10.380 cutoff in our experience of life.

00:48:13.920 50,000 is sort of the number of

00:48:16.380 people who died in Vietnam.

00:48:18.760 And we say that was too many.

00:48:20.840 50,000 is roughly in that

00:48:22.880 neighborhood of how many people die

00:48:24.260 from guns.

00:48:25.620 50,000 is sort of where people are

00:48:27.960 dying from automobile accidents.

00:48:30.280 50,000 is sort of where the overdose

00:48:33.120 numbers are.

00:48:34.920 Now, you know, it's in the 30 to 100,000,

00:48:37.240 but I'm just saying 50,000 is that

00:48:38.920 range, right?

00:48:40.500 50,000 has taken on a psychological and

00:48:46.260 emotional meaning for us.

00:48:47.940 This is a hypothesis, right?

00:48:50.120 So, I can't point any science behind this,

00:48:52.620 so don't take it too seriously.

00:48:54.160 I put it down as a hypothesis.

00:48:57.080 Maybe we'll see if something happens this

00:48:59.280 way.

00:48:59.740 We'll never know if it's because of this.

00:49:02.040 But, so here's the basic idea.

00:49:04.680 Yeah, and the flu.

00:49:05.320 Somebody says in the comments, the average

00:49:08.320 flu kills in the range of, you know,

00:49:11.280 give or take 50,000.

00:49:12.820 So, I believe that in our minds, there is

00:49:15.600 a magic number which we accept in the

00:49:19.080 United States as too much.

00:49:22.040 And then below that, it's like, well, I

00:49:24.320 will accept up to 50,000 deaths because

00:49:27.520 I need a car.

00:49:28.940 You know, society needs transportation.

00:49:31.380 I will accept 50,000 deaths from illegal 0.56

00:49:35.500 drugs, overdoses, because the alternative

00:49:38.480 is what?

00:49:40.260 You know, closing all the borders and not

00:49:43.100 accepting mail from other countries.

00:49:45.220 And, you know, so they say, well, given the

00:49:47.400 trade-offs, I'll accept that.

00:49:49.980 So, I'm going to continue to put out the

00:49:53.560 50,000 number.

00:49:54.680 And by the way, I heard Lindsey Graham use 0.78

00:49:56.700 the same number.

00:49:57.300 I don't know.

00:49:59.740 It's possible that he heard it from

00:50:01.540 somebody who heard it from me.

00:50:03.000 But I think it's more likely that he came

00:50:05.880 up with the same number.

00:50:07.720 I think the most likely scenario is that

00:50:09.880 Lindsey Graham did the same thing I'm

00:50:11.380 doing right now, which is, okay, just if

00:50:13.940 I had to think about it as a justice

00:50:16.320 citizen, where would I be comfortable to

00:50:20.300 get the economy back knowing that X number

00:50:23.800 of people will die?

00:50:24.940 What is X?

00:50:25.540 What's my X?

00:50:26.580 And he said, 50,000.

00:50:29.040 The more of us who can say that, the more

00:50:32.380 50,000 becomes a thing.

00:50:34.940 And even it could be we're debating whether

00:50:37.640 it should be above or below 50,000.

00:50:40.460 As long as that number gets in our head, then

00:50:43.800 we've got something we can tell our experts.

00:50:46.660 Hey, experts, we know you can't be that

00:50:49.080 accurate.

00:50:50.060 But give us your best estimate of when we

00:50:53.840 can go back to work and under what

00:50:55.540 conditions that will keep us under this

00:50:58.520 psychologically important level of 50,000.

00:51:02.680 And I think that makes, so this is the, what

00:51:05.460 I call the drug dealer's trick, where you

00:51:07.780 find a way that you're both psychologically

00:51:09.640 happy, even if you don't know you've made

00:51:12.060 the right decision.

00:51:12.800 So we need to be, as a society, we need to be

00:51:16.540 psychologically comfortable with whatever we

00:51:18.900 decide, but also completely aware that we can't

00:51:22.440 know what's the best thing to do.

00:51:23.760 It's just not knowable.

00:51:25.380 You can take a guess and you can adjust as you

00:51:27.440 get to go, but you've got to be comfortable or

00:51:29.720 you're not going to get off the first square.

00:51:32.400 And I think to do that, we need to float the

00:51:35.280 number of 50,000 and just wrestle with it for a

00:51:39.820 while until that number becomes something we

00:51:42.320 feel is comfortable.

00:51:45.840 I see a very insightful comment that says 1.00

00:51:49.480 bullshit. 1.00

00:51:52.140 Somebody says too low. 1.00

00:51:56.440 Too low, you're saying too low because it

00:51:58.560 won't get us back to work.

00:52:00.800 Well, I think that we can get to 50,000.

00:52:03.640 And I think we can get there simply by keeping

00:52:06.300 old people locked up and doing a better job.

00:52:10.080 You know, here's an idea that nobody's talked

00:52:13.140 about.

00:52:14.300 Suppose you had only one.

00:52:17.980 Now, let's say you had two tests and you had

00:52:22.320 two extended families.

00:52:24.340 So there were two, you know, families that had

00:52:26.660 from children to parents.

00:52:29.260 And let's say one grandparent is living in the

00:52:31.300 home.

00:52:32.180 And there are two of these situations.

00:52:33.920 So two households have a grandparent there.

00:52:36.920 You only have two tests available.

00:52:39.700 What's the best thing you can do if you have

00:52:42.220 two tests?

00:52:43.380 You test the two grandparents in the two

00:52:45.440 different households.

00:52:46.740 And then you put the grandparents in the same

00:52:49.260 house and you have the young people move over 0.99

00:52:52.120 and double up in the house that has the young

00:52:55.040 people in it.

00:52:56.220 So then you've got the two tested grandparents.

00:52:58.540 You just say, well, nobody's coming in this

00:53:00.120 house for six months.

00:53:01.540 You know, we're going to shove pizzas under the

00:53:03.300 door, but nobody's coming in the house.

00:53:05.460 You guys have tested.

00:53:06.960 You're good.

00:53:07.960 You just live in this house and the rest of us

00:53:09.920 will live with the low risk people.

00:53:12.180 Now, I don't know how often things like that

00:53:13.920 would happen.

00:53:14.480 I use that as an extreme example to say that we

00:53:18.080 have not exhausted the cleverness that we can

00:53:20.940 apply.

00:53:22.140 So if the government said right now, our models

00:53:25.620 say that we're still going to be at 60,000.

00:53:27.920 But I don't think our cleverness has been expired.

00:53:32.820 We have not gotten the bottom of the well of our

00:53:35.040 cleverness.

00:53:36.040 So even though our models are still saying 60,000,

00:53:39.460 we feel comfortable saying that human ingenuity can get

00:53:43.460 us below 50,000.

00:53:44.580 So I think our experts have plenty of ability to say, yeah,

00:53:48.260 this is the time and this is the way.

00:53:51.660 And they could also say going to work without masks won't get

00:53:55.580 you under 50,000, going to work with masks, with

00:53:59.420 hydroxychloroquine, once we know a little bit more about

00:54:02.760 the effectiveness.

00:54:03.900 So they could give us a prescription that is effectively

00:54:07.920 a checklist.

00:54:09.420 I created a checklist for you.

00:54:11.400 But they could create a better one that says, all right,

00:54:13.580 if you meet these criteria, you're good to go.

00:54:16.800 And I think they could keep it under 50,000.

00:54:19.800 So these are the things I'll be pushing the most.

00:54:22.200 The number of 50,000, a checklist so our experts can tell us

00:54:27.060 whether we're on the list to go back first, and then a decision

00:54:31.640 on the end of the month.

00:54:33.580 If you can give me those things, plus some confidence that we're

00:54:38.620 not going to run out of ventilators and stuff, and I think

00:54:41.640 we're getting close to that, then I feel like we have something

00:54:45.540 that looks like a plan.

00:54:46.480 And I would be very proud of living in a country that could get us

00:54:50.960 to that point, actually.

00:54:52.600 If we can get to the point where we've got a number that we're

00:54:55.980 managing to, and we've got a checklist where we can all say, yes,

00:55:00.200 yes, that applies.

00:55:01.840 You know, no science needed.

00:55:03.940 Either I have a mask and I'm going to wear it, or I don't.

00:55:06.520 Check, check.

00:55:08.120 That's a plan.

00:55:09.620 So let's get to that point.

00:55:11.060 All right, that's all I got for today.

00:55:12.140 I will talk to you tonight, you know when, 10 p.m.

00:55:16.500 Eastern Time, 7 p.m. Pacific.

00:55:20.020 And I will see you then.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - April 09, 2020

Episode 902 Scott Adams： I Tell You About My Experience With Models. No, Not That Kind.

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript