The Charlie Kirk Show - How COVID Killed Science with Statistician Aaron Ginn

00:00:00.000 Thank you for listening to this podcast one production.

00:00:02.000 Now available on Apple Podcasts, Podcast One, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts.

00:00:08.000 Hey, everybody, what is going on with the lockdowns in our country?

00:00:12.000 Statistician and expert on the Chinese coronavirus, Aaron Ginn, is here.

00:00:16.000 He's a friend of mine.

00:00:18.000 He's very smart, very fair, very reasoned, and you're going to love the analysis that he gives about the corruption of science and the Chinese coronavirus.

00:00:27.000 Please consider supporting our program at charliekirk.com/slash support.

00:00:31.000 CharlieKirk.com/slash support.

00:00:33.000 If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, the nation's largest organization fighting for freedom on campuses across the country, go to tpusa.com, tpusa.com, and email us at freedom at charliekirk.com, freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:00:48.000 Aaron Ginn is here, everybody, with the answers to your questions about the Chinese coronavirus.

00:00:53.000 Buckle up, everybody.

00:00:54.000 Here we go.

00:00:55.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

00:00:57.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.

00:00:59.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

00:01:03.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

00:01:06.000 I want to thank Charlie.

00:01:07.000 He's an incredible guy.

00:01:08.000 His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.

00:01:15.000 Turning point USA.

00:01:16.000 We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

00:01:25.000 That's why we are here.

00:01:28.000 Computer systems in cars are the new normal.

00:01:31.000 From electronically controlled transmissions to touchscreen displays to dozens of sensors, but you can't fix any of these new features yourself.

00:01:38.000 So when something breaks, it could cost a fortune.

00:01:40.000 And now is not the time for expensive repairs.

00:01:43.000 That's why I have Car Shield.

00:01:46.000 Car Shield has affordable protection plans that can save you thousands for a covered repair, including computers, GPS, electronics, and more.

00:01:53.000 The people at CarShield understand payment flexibility is an absolute must.

00:01:57.000 Monthly plans can be customized to your needs with rates as low as $99 a month.

00:02:01.000 There's no long-term contracts or commitments, and CarShield gives you options others won't.

00:02:06.000 You get to choose your favorite mechanic or dealership to do the work, and CarShield takes care of the rest.

00:02:12.000 They also offer complimentary 24-7 roadside assistance and a rental car while yours is being fixed.

00:02:17.000 CarShield has helped over 1 million customers, so drive with confidence knowing you got coverage from America's number one auto protection company.

00:02:24.000 For as low as $99 a month, you can protect yourself from surprises and save thousands for a covered repair.

00:02:29.000 Call 800CAR6000 and mention the code Kirk.

00:02:32.000 That's 800CAR60000.

00:02:34.000 Or visit CarShield.com and use the code Kirk to save 10%.

00:02:38.000 That's CarShield.com.

00:02:40.000 Code Kirk, a deductible may apply.

00:02:45.000 Hey, everybody.

00:02:46.000 Welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show.

00:02:48.000 Joining us again with special analysis on the Chinese coronavirus is Aaron Ginn, friend of mine and statistician Galore.

00:02:58.000 Hey, Aaron, how are you doing?

00:03:00.000 Hey, Charlie.

00:03:02.000 I'm doing pretty well.

00:03:04.000 I'm going to read a headline to you, and I need you to tell me what's really going on.

00:03:08.000 Coronavirus is spreading quickly in 31 states.

00:03:13.000 What is the latest going on with the Chinese coronavirus, hospitalization, death rates?

00:03:19.000 Tell us the facts outside of any sort of activist media bias.

00:03:24.000 I wouldn't really know how to measure quickly.

00:03:27.000 That would be, it's not a very scientific word.

00:03:32.000 Such a good point.

00:03:34.000 Yeah, people, Americans understand that the original social contract that was given to us about the lockdown and COVID and coronavirus was that we would do a short-term pain to have long-term rewards of managing hospital capacity.

00:03:48.000 As that crisis came really to only unfold in really two places in the country, we have now moved the goalpost again to the case dimming.

00:03:58.000 And as we're sort of extrapolating that as well, we now are learning that actually, as even the New York Times was reporting, that the quote unquote false positive rate of a lot of these tests is much higher than we ever thought possible, mainly due to the number of times we're actually cycling through these RNA experiments or RNA testing.

00:04:16.000 So to say that it's like spreading quickly, it's kind of hard to understand exactly, especially when you know that a high number of the tests are actually false positives or false cases because they're not really infectious.

00:04:27.000 But if you actually, let's just assume that all the cases that we're finding are true asymptomatics or symptomatic cases.

00:04:35.000 The overall prevalence is much lower than we thought in terms of during the March pandemic.

00:04:42.000 Because you can't take, if you remember back in March, we didn't have a lot as much testing.

00:04:47.000 We were focusing testing on symptomatics and people in acute care.

00:04:50.000 So you have to extrapolate the number of fatalities to the total infection.

00:04:55.000 And based on that, it is way higher in March and April than we are today.

00:04:58.000 Today, what we are, as most pandemics go, actually, is like it goes as we see the pandemic as it appears in the highly susceptible aka high-risk population as they pass away.

00:05:08.000 We now see it.

00:05:09.000 Because if you and I got it in December, we wouldn't have noticed it, right?

00:05:13.000 We would have just been, oh, I just have a cold today, right?

00:05:15.000 Or, or I just feel a little bit like weird.

00:05:18.000 So now we're in this phase of the pandemic as it has passed through the high-risk susceptible population.

00:05:23.000 It's now reaching these other groups of people like college kids, younger adults, and just people that were previously in lockdown mode.

00:05:31.000 So in some respects, like we are still seeing cases because we have a high test sensitivity that's detecting people that are not really infectious.

00:05:41.000 And the second part is that as people have left the lockdown, as you would know, as you would assume, more people are getting it, but hospital rates are much, much lower.

00:05:51.000 I mean, like incredibly lower.

00:05:52.000 I mean, ICU capacity now is stabilized almost across the entire nation.

00:05:57.000 And we are now seeing the fact that the way we're measuring this virus needs to change because we have learned more than we know.

00:06:04.000 We learned more.

00:06:05.000 We know way more back in March.

00:06:06.000 Well, I think people, to an untrained eye, people believe that, oh, cases mustn't necessarily correlate to hospitalizations and deaths.

00:06:14.000 But hospitalization rates and ICUs and deaths are going down for a variety of different reasons.

00:06:20.000 And you articulated that very well.

00:06:22.000 I just have to compliment you.

00:06:24.000 Quickly is not a scientific term.

00:06:26.000 It's such a media term that rises quickly.

00:06:28.000 How do you measure that?

00:06:29.000 Quickly according to what scale?

00:06:30.000 What axis are you measuring that on?

00:06:32.000 It's perfect. 0.95

00:06:33.000 Exactly.

00:06:34.000 And you mentioned a really good philosophical point here, the social contract, which, again, that's usually robbed more by the left.

00:06:41.000 You know, there's three types of social contract theory.

00:06:44.000 The three people, of course, that talked about the most was Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke.

00:06:48.000 All of them had a very different perspective of the type of social contract that we should have in our society.

00:06:54.000 Thomas Hobbes obviously thought human beings were awful to each other, nasty, brutish, and short.

00:06:58.000 Therefore, we need an authoritarian, almost a dictator-type government.

00:07:02.000 He wrote that in the Leviathan.

00:07:03.000 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, human beings thought were awesome, and he thought that the state should basically allow us to be in a permanent state of infancy.

00:07:10.000 John Locke, I think, got it the best.

00:07:12.000 I think his observation of human nature was a little bit flawed, but he thought that government should protect natural rights, that at all costs, we must have a pursuit of liberty.

00:07:22.000 I think you make a great point that there is almost this self-sacrificial promise given to us by the ruling class and the experts saying, it's okay if your business shuts down because long term, you're actually going to be better because of it.

00:07:34.000 The social contract actual promise in the last six months post the initial two weeks to slow the spread has changed, which is now we must inevitably, we just must wait this out perpetually because if we don't, then everything is going to be bad in perpetuity.

00:07:50.000 Can you talk more about, Aaron, about how they have been changing?

00:07:53.000 You call this movie the gold post.

00:07:54.000 I call this the moving of the Overton window.

00:07:56.000 I think this is also another way to kind of mention this is just they are continuously just trying to justify their own power.

00:08:03.000 Can you talk about how they are using different sets of data interchangeably while they're talking about allegedly the same thing?

00:08:10.000 Yeah, no, you're right that there is this moving constantly of like, what is the success metric?

00:08:18.000 And Europe has actually been, yeah, Europe has actually been far more, I think, honest with their people about what's going on and like what's what sacrifices we're making, what trade-offs we're making.

00:08:29.000 I mean, it's actually the Anglo countries that have been quite embarrassing in terms of how they've been treating their citizens and how public health has responded to the situation.

00:08:39.000 You know, both Sweden in the sense of like being the control for the entire world, but also other Nordic countries have been far more transparent, like Norway and Denmark, with their people about like, hey, with every policy decision, there are trade-offs.

00:08:52.000 And we're going to be adults about this and we're going to be honest with you about what the risks are, but we have to move on with civilization.

00:08:59.000 So you see Europe is, even though they're suffering from a true second wave because the Tumbleton number cases is now basically in some countries surpassing the sort of first wave that happened in early part of this year.

00:09:11.000 What happened with Arizona and Florida, we never reached that point in terms of the severity of illness with cases.

00:09:17.000 It was far lower in terms of what was going in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

00:09:22.000 But what we are seeing in terms of both the UK and Spain and France is that as cases have drastically increased, we're seeing a little bit increase, as you would assume, because the prevalence is just way higher now.

00:09:33.000 So undoubtedly there's going to be some increased hospitalizations and fatalities, but they're being transparent with their people.

00:09:39.000 I mean, like Macron has said openly several times, we're not going back to lockdown.

00:09:44.000 Like that was basically a mistake.

00:09:46.000 And he's actually called out the health minister saying, if you think you need to lock down as part of my cabinet, you basically need to get better at your job.

00:09:55.000 Like he said in a cabinet. 0.84

00:09:56.000 This is the French.

00:09:57.000 So yeah, this is the French, right?

00:09:59.000 So, you know, supposedly white flag French, right?

00:10:01.000 So I think that they, they, like Europe has been able to balance the trade-offs more versus I think our country, the UK and Australia, New Zealand, haven't been able to come to terms with the fact that everything has trade-offs.

00:10:16.000 And public health used to understand that, a lot of public health experts.

00:10:19.000 But the good thing is like, you know, where we are today is that we understand much more about how to treat this virus.

00:10:26.000 We understand what not to do, basically what New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan did, don't do those things.

00:10:33.000 Do much more of the things what happened in Florida and in South Dakota, basically how to like manage severe patients, how to also continue on with civilization, how to prevent rioting, violence in the streets because people don't have jobs and they feel very frustrated and scared.

00:10:50.000 And eventually we will get passes as a nation because I believe so much in Western civilization, Western ideas, and the scientific method.

00:10:58.000 But we're in this sort of haze because of the two weeks of slow to spread, the massive amount of fear the media was generating, and the inability to understand that I think Americans were shocked to understand actually how many people die a week before COVID.

00:11:15.000 Still, there's no context on that whatsoever.

00:11:17.000 They say 200,000 people, but we, unfortunately, it's just life.

00:11:21.000 A couple million people die a year in our country.

00:11:23.000 Like that's unfortunately the cycle of life.

00:11:25.000 So Aaron, I'm going to read you a headline here.

00:11:28.000 And to be honest, I have just lost total faith in the expert class in the Western world because you and I were talking about this loudly and repeatedly back in March, April, and May.

00:11:39.000 I remember the phone calls between each other.

00:11:42.000 New York Times vilified early over lax virus strategy.

00:11:46.000 Sweden seems to have scourge controlled.

00:11:49.000 This is the New York Times.

00:11:50.000 I don't know if you saw the story or not.

00:11:53.000 After having weathered high death rates, when it's resisted a lockdown in the spring, Sweden now has one of Europe's lowest rates of daily new cases.

00:12:00.000 Whether that is an aberration remains to be seen.

00:12:04.000 Have the Swedes and the socialist Swedes, were they onto something this whole time?

00:12:09.000 I would actually say no, because what they did was basically what public health people would have advised, you know, if we didn't have TDS and Trump Ferris syndrome, like if they, or if we didn't have the politicalization of science, or we didn't have the, you know, a lot of the xenophobia that would sort of been spreading around our nation or around the world.

00:12:27.000 Sweden basically did what all public health people would have done, you know, three years ago, first year.

00:12:33.000 I mean, Technel and Koseki say openly that what they did was actually not unique.

00:12:38.000 It was actually what they always prescribe, which is what public health people generally prescribe what they're taught in school, is give people information, trust them that they will actually do the right thing, do sort of smaller mitigation stuff on the edges that doesn't interfere with society drastically because you don't want to create unknown secondary effects.

00:12:58.000 And one of the very key principles that's taught in public health policy is do not blame people that get infected.

00:13:06.000 Do not treat them as if they're the scourge of society as we currently do today, as if it's like their fault, as if like we somehow have chosen like as if the virus has some agency behind it and some moral authority behind it.

00:13:19.000 And because what that does is a secondary side effect is like, yeah, it's like it's like people won't get treated.

00:13:23.000 People won't come forward.

00:13:24.000 People won't like, you know, actually choose to self-isolate.

00:13:29.000 Instead, we have this whole moral connotation where people will just hide it and like, you know, run away.

00:13:33.000 So the Sweden basically chose a path that was sort of typical public health policy that we traditionally have done in the past, you know, especially for coronaviruses.

00:13:46.000 But even in the sense of like what New York Times described, which is they said, I believe you said that they had high death rates.

00:13:53.000 That's not even accurate.

00:13:54.000 Like Belgium, like Spain, Peru, UK, like these are all places that are higher, even us, right?

00:14:02.000 So to say that it has a higher death rate is not accurate because like at what time frame do you measure?

00:14:07.000 At the end of this year, we'll be able to look back on the various policies and be able to judge.

00:14:13.000 And I think that what you'll find is that countries that did lockdowns had an enormous number of excess deaths, not COVID necessarily, but excess deaths and the total fatality rates within the country.

00:14:24.000 You cannot compare specifically COVID deaths necessarily between countries because every country does something different.

00:14:32.000 Belgium has a very generous definition of what is a COVID death and a time range behind that.

00:14:36.000 So the UK has a different measure.

00:14:38.000 Even in America, we have states do different things in terms of what is a COVID death.

00:14:43.000 The better way to measure it is excess deaths with a combination of looking at total COVID deaths and then be able to also balance out what other people could have died of as well.

00:14:53.000 And I think what you'll see is that countries that chose lockdowns that continue to sort of torture their civilization will find a higher number of excess deaths due to the policy decisions.

00:15:05.000 When running a business, HR issues can kill you.

00:15:08.000 I know this quite well from running a business.

00:15:10.000 Wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, and more.

00:15:14.000 And HR manager salaries are never cheap.

00:15:16.000 They're an average of $70,000 a year.

00:15:19.000 BAMBY, spelled B-A-M-B-E-E, was created specifically for small business.

00:15:24.000 You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy, and maintain your compliance all for just $99 a month.

00:15:30.000 With BAMBI, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.

00:15:35.000 Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat from onboarding determinations that customize your policy to fit your business.

00:15:43.000 And they help you manage your employees day-to-day all for just $99 a month.

00:15:47.000 Month to month, there's no hidden fees, cancel anytime.

00:15:49.000 You didn't start your business because you wanted to spend time in HR compliance.

00:15:52.000 Let Bambi help.

00:15:53.000 Get your free HR audit today.

00:15:55.000 Go to bambi.com slash kirk right now to schedule your free HR audit.

00:15:59.000 That's bambi.com slash kirk.

00:16:01.000 Spell bam to the bee.com slash kirk.

00:16:08.000 So, Aaron, I want you to build out more something that you and I have talked about previously, which is the corruption of sciences.

00:16:14.000 The left says that they're for science.

00:16:15.000 They accuse the right of being anti-science.

00:16:18.000 You and I both know that the scientific method is rooted in challenging, you know, pre-existing premises.

00:16:24.000 It's about having unafraid dialogue about what is true and what is not true.

00:16:31.000 The postmodern belief, and this is in critical race theory and critical theory, that the sciences, and this, you could see this on newdiscourses.com by two true liberals, not leftists, James Lindsay and Peter Bogogian.

00:16:46.000 They have said this completely, that the sciences are under attack by the postmodernists because they think that science is actually just a tool and an instrument of white supremacy.

00:16:55.000 Now, that might be a little bit too far to accuse every single doctor out there right now of being in that kind of vein, but I do think that that sort of existing framework definitely played a role in some of these scientists and doctors being so vocal and being so committed to dogma, not to actual science.

00:17:17.000 For example, Dr. Fauci has come out and he has said that it is a catastrophic mistake that Florida is opening its restaurants.

00:17:24.000 He has said that school openings are a mistake.

00:17:27.000 I will read you another quote here.

00:17:29.000 This is from Dr. Robert Redfield, who says, quote, Dr. Scott Atlas is arming Trump with misleading data about the Chinese coronavirus.

00:17:38.000 Center for Disease Control Director Dr. Robert Redfield told a colleague Friday.

00:17:43.000 So he's from the Center for Disease Control.

00:17:46.000 Dr. Atlas said this, quote, science is about openly challenging and discussing different ideas, and it is critically important that we start doing that.

00:17:53.000 No real scientist would disagree, and any confident scientists would welcome a debate with colleagues holding different views, Scott Atlas.

00:17:59.000 So what happens now, Aaron, when you have two doctors that disagree?

00:18:03.000 The Biden Democrats think that one of those is a heretic, and one of those is a pope.

00:18:10.000 You and I believe that, well, maybe one might be right about something, one or the other.

00:18:14.000 It is the death of empiricism and almost the birth of this very dangerous descent into thousand-year-old dogma.

00:18:22.000 A lot of scientists are really bad at philosophy, right?

00:18:25.000 This is why the whole sort of philosophy of science, like John Lennox practice has sort of developed, because scientists, when they're focused on the sort of empirical part, can actually be quite good and can actually give us data and evidence.

00:18:37.000 But you have to realize that the conclusions that are drawn from the data and evidence is not necessarily based on data and evidence because based on wisdom and experience, you know, presuppositions.

00:18:48.000 And this is when Dr. Fauci says that it's a catastrophe.

00:18:53.000 I'm like, that's the one.

00:18:54.000 It's not a scientific word.

00:18:55.000 So what do you mean by that?

00:18:56.000 And the second is like you are enacting a public policy, which is not in the realm of science.

00:19:03.000 Science can inform policy, but policy is a decision between humans to create social structures, philosophical arguments of what's important, ROI.

00:19:12.000 ROI is not a scientific question.

00:19:15.000 ROI is a judgment call that I believe elected officials should execute, not non-elected bureaucrats.

00:19:21.000 But if Dr. Fauci disagrees with the approach of Governor DeSantis, please be specific about what those things are and what is your evidence based on that.

00:19:29.000 And we can have a debate.

00:19:30.000 But saying things like catastrophe or saying things like it's too soon or I'm concerned, I don't know what I'm concerned means.

00:19:36.000 Like when a public health person says, I'm concerned about something, what?

00:19:40.000 Right?

00:19:40.000 Like, do you, are you, you need to like provide me a data.

00:19:43.000 So Dr. Atlas is 100% correct.

00:19:45.000 It's not just him.

00:19:45.000 They're like, you know, Dr. Kuloff at Harvard, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology has said there's something Ioannidis.

00:19:53.000 There's a huge list of these guys.

00:19:54.000 Yeah, like Dr. Below and Dr. Gupta, Dr. Hinnigan in the UK.

00:20:00.000 But for some reason, in the Anglo countries, because the same problems also happen in Australia and New Zealand, that we have not accepted open debate and dialogue about this thing.

00:20:09.000 For as I give you two examples, so the Danish Public Health Authority and the Norwegian Public Health Authority both actually have had public debates with their politicians saying you advocate for things that are not what we say.

00:20:23.000 Basically, we give you data, it's up to you to make the call.

00:20:26.000 So it's your responsibility.

00:20:27.000 They've actually clearly drawn a line that the Norwegian public health authority said several times publicly, we did not advise you to close schools because we had no data to support that.

00:20:36.000 Denmark has said the same thing, that you, politician, took that.

00:20:40.000 So in some respects, as you know, that's their call, right?

00:20:44.000 It's your decision to take, you know, what data I give you of responsibility.

00:20:48.000 Don't throw it back on me.

00:20:50.000 As a scientist, I think at the end of the day, what will happen is ultimately, as you know, because you're much more involved in politics than I am, that politicians don't like taking responsibility.

00:21:01.000 So who's going to be the scapegoat?

00:21:03.000 It's going to be scientists.

00:21:04.000 And scientists right now are long for the ride because they get attention, they have power.

00:21:09.000 Scientists are humans.

00:21:10.000 They have biases and pathologies just like everybody.

00:21:12.000 And at the end of the day, when things come to a head, when we see the damage of the lockdowns, when we see the cancer deaths rise, when we see the suicides, we see alcohol abuse, we see kids don't return to school, when we see poverty, we see hunger, when we see war, countries imploding, bonds going bankrupt because you don't have an economy.

00:21:30.000 Who are they going to blame?

00:21:31.000 The politicians are going to say, hey, that was my bad.

00:21:33.000 They're going to be like, it was that scientist's fault, right?

00:21:35.000 And they're going to be scapegoated and it's going to be very damaging to science.

00:21:39.000 So we need to celebrate people as the professors and doctors that you have listed.

00:21:44.000 Celebrate them because they are pushing forward the actual true scientific method of heterodox thinking.

00:21:49.000 The president, you know, Dr. Ellis is the head of the Kronot Task Force now, should embrace heterodox thinking.

00:21:55.000 Homogenous thinking, group think leads to dangerous ideas.

00:21:59.000 Yes, that religious ideas about something, which again, if you believe that as a public policy matter, that is totally your prerogative, but you do not take the banner of science as if it is your banner to carry and only you carry as if you are the only person that holds it, right?

00:22:14.000 As the CDC and I think NIH have totally biased themselves, I think, thinking that they're put in the limelight.

00:22:21.000 I think there's way too much public policy that's coming out of there that they claim is based on the particular scientific method.

00:22:26.000 When Ali, it's just their opinion about something.

00:22:29.000 Again, which is okay, but you need to clarify that this is my view of what this data says. 0.99

00:22:35.000 You're looking at this so correctly and clearly, where you have a group of people that are almost the untouchables.

00:22:41.000 They are the class of the enlightened, which because they have a doctor in front of their name and they have a very specific policy prescription, not a scientific observation, not involved in empiricism at all whatsoever.

00:22:56.000 But now they're in the philosophical, they're in the political realm where for some good reason, I challenge this a little bit.

00:23:05.000 The American people think very highly of anyone that has a doctor in front of their name.

00:23:10.000 Now, mind you, for whatever reason, dissenting doctors are suffocated and attacked.

00:23:15.000 And we just went through that entire list.

00:23:17.000 So it's only a certain amount, it's only certain doctors, right?

00:23:21.000 It's only certain people that we're supposed to trust.

00:23:24.000 And what I'm very worried about, Aaron, I think you'll agree with this, is that this in no way is good for Western society because for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

00:23:34.000 And that's true in physics and it's true in politics.

00:23:37.000 And it's also true in culture because people are going to realize that we were hoodwinked by these power-hungry, self-righteous, foolish political doctors that were putting forth a very specific agenda for whatever reason we can conjecture.

00:23:55.000 And Dr. Fauci being the chief among it. 0.56

00:23:58.000 And the president was correct in the debate.

00:24:00.000 I actually think it was the best part of the debate for him.

00:24:03.000 And I wish he would have leaned in on this even more when he said, wait a second, look at the alcoholism, divorce, depression, and all of this.

00:24:09.000 And Joe Biden just completely said, no, none of that stuff matters.

00:24:12.000 It was actually the strongest part of the debate.

00:24:15.000 And this idea that lockdowns are a victimless action has been so disproven.

00:24:21.000 And you and I know this is true through the data.

00:24:23.000 We know this is true experientially.

00:24:28.000 You're listening to the Charlie Kirk show right now, or else you wouldn't hear me say this.

00:24:31.000 And you might have earbuds in.

00:24:33.000 And the best way to listen is actually premium wireless earbuds.

00:24:37.000 And that's why I recommend wireless earbuds from Raycon.

00:24:39.000 They're terrific.

00:24:40.000 The whole team at the Charlie Kirk show just walks around with Raycon earbuds all the time.

00:24:45.000 And Raycon's newest model, the Everyday E25 earbuds, are the best ones yet.

00:24:49.000 They have six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more base and a more compact design, and a noise-isolating fit.

00:24:57.000 Raycon earbuds are stylish and discreet.

00:24:59.000 There's no more dangling wires or stems.

00:25:02.000 Give them a try.

00:25:03.000 Raycon is a 45-day free return policy so you can make sure they're the wireless earbuds for you.

00:25:08.000 For a limited time, get 15% off your order at buyraycon.com/slash Kirk.

00:25:12.000 That's by Raycon.com/slash Kirk for a special 15% discount on Raycon Wireless.

00:25:18.000 Again, make sure to check it out right now while the deal is running.

00:25:20.000 Buyraycon.com/slash Kirk.

00:25:25.000 And so, Aaron, can you just talk more broadly about how is the outrage among the other tens of thousands of scientists across the planet?

00:25:38.000 It seems as if there's just kind of this almost sit-down and shut up hierarchy now in the epidemiological community.

00:25:45.000 Like, I'm an epidemiologist.

00:25:46.000 I know what's better.

00:25:47.000 You've been wrong about everything.

00:25:48.000 I mean, they were wrong about the models, they were wrong about death rates, they were wrong about hospitalization rates, they were wrong about treatments, they were wrong about everything.

00:25:55.000 And so, and then you also have the Democrats, and I hate to overly politicize this, but they're involved in this virus revisionism.

00:26:02.000 So, Aaron, I'm afraid that this is going to clash into this could be something that none of us want to go.

00:26:10.000 This could be a couple hundred-year regression where we reject the principles that help build the West, which is the blend of reason and revelation.

00:26:20.000 The politicization of science, which is, you know, you alluded to some other areas which science has abandoned enlightenment principles and abandoned sort of broader, you know, sort of evidence-based Western civilization values, like the thing of like, you know, being able to be empathetic and data-driven and like being open-handed about debates, open to heterodoxy ideas, uh, and being a skeptic.

00:26:42.000 Like, I would identify heavily with skepticism.

00:26:45.000 Um, and even though like I'm balanced out with being a religious Christian, uh, like there, there when we get to the point in society where objectivity, which is really what the question is in front of us, is that science is losing its ability to be objective because it's being so politicized.

00:27:03.000 Because objectivity is fundamentally what I would say a lot of Western countries are suffering from.

00:27:09.000 Uh, that you know, if you go just go through the line of debate topics in our culture, and fundamentally, kind of at its core is this a rejection that something can be absolutely true.

00:27:20.000 Instead, they're rather embraced subjectivity.

00:27:23.000 And so, science comes in providing evidence and data.

00:27:26.000 Yeah, and then now we're trying as the sort of postmodern revolution eats away at the sort of scientific culture.

00:27:33.000 That is like what happened with COVID.

00:27:35.000 Like, so COVID is a novel virus, and we're going to debate how novel it truly is.

00:27:41.000 But in terms of sort of the broader scope of other coronaviruses and other pandemics, I mean, this is like Hong Kong flu.

00:27:48.000 This is like, you know, 1957, 1958 flu.

00:27:51.000 So, aka, it's serious, but not the end of the world.

00:27:56.000 So, what explains the other behaviors, right?

00:27:59.000 What explains the other end of the world?

00:28:02.000 Like, we must stop everything.

00:28:03.000 We must have no balance.

00:28:04.000 We must have no moderation.

00:28:06.000 And it's these other broader cultural things that, you know, your show covers and other shows, like, you know, like Tucker and Dennis Prager, like that all of this came to head at this one moment, right?

00:28:15.000 So, this is why, like, when I first, when I first got, you know, into COVID in early January and started descending this, it's like, there were all these other cultural things that were going on that scientists were latching into and didn't realize their own presuppositions.

00:28:28.000 They could not see clearly that, hey, that there are significant costs to lockdown.

00:28:32.000 Hey, like, we have to balance this or, hey, like, what is the data?

00:28:36.000 What does it even mean?

00:28:36.000 Like, in the debate last night, like Trump mentioned the other countries and data tracking, you know, in whatever, how he ever described it, you know, we can debate about the accuracy of those specific things.

00:28:48.000 But his orientation was accurate, which is that we are the only nation in the world doing it this way.

00:28:54.000 So the fact to say that we have, you know, 22% of the deaths or whatever, again, that's not even control.

00:28:59.000 You have to control for age.

00:29:00.000 You have to control for when time that pandemic happened.

00:29:03.000 There are a lot of things to control for.

00:29:04.000 But we are the only ones having the sensitivity of the tests as high as it do.

00:29:10.000 Like in Europe, they're about, you know, it's not a, it's actually exponential.

00:29:14.000 As you increase the number of cycle times, it exponentially increases the sensitivity.

00:29:17.000 But the number of cycle times they're running is almost 50% less than us.

00:29:21.000 And some countries like Spain are now requiring both a scan of the chest and symptoms to be counted as like a basically COVID admission versus, you know, we, we're just like testing everyone and everything.

00:29:35.000 And it's like, oh, you know, if I come in for, and I know this for sure, and I can confirm this from doctors.

00:29:41.000 Yeah, exactly.

00:29:42.000 I, there are a lot of doctors that messaged me saying that like everyone that comes in as a COVID patient is here for some other reason.

00:29:49.000 And we don't treat them for COVID.

00:29:51.000 And so there is a majority, a silent majority.

00:29:55.000 Of course, we don't have polling on this, but that is my experience is that the majority of scientists and doctors think that what is publicly discussed, who people are cited as experts, they do not agree with.

00:29:55.000 I believe it's a majority.

00:30:09.000 They think that they're hysterical, that they're not based in reason and rationale.

00:30:13.000 Like they're concerned about COVID.

00:30:14.000 And as we always, as you, and I actually think our public response was anything but treating it seriously.

00:30:20.000 So I don't understand when people say our public response or public policy response was not serious.

00:30:25.000 I mean, we literally shut down the nation.

00:30:28.000 And we have, we still have, yeah, we have, we have cities that still don't have indoor dining.

00:30:33.000 We have, like, I don't get how it's like we did take it seriously.

00:30:36.000 We banned travel from countries.

00:30:37.000 Countries that did take it seriously would be like going to Belarus or Sweden maybe or Japan.

00:30:43.000 You could say that they didn't take it seriously because they did less than us, right?

00:30:47.000 But we totally took it seriously.

00:30:49.000 And I believe our policy response will be, at least some states are fine.

00:30:55.000 Other states took it way too far, mainly the Democratic states in the Northeast.

00:31:00.000 Because you can see in the excess deaths, it's just like you could totally see that they took it too far.

00:31:04.000 That at the end of the day, lockdowns will be one of the greatest mistakes in public policy and modern public policy that we've ever done.

00:31:14.000 What's really interesting is that a lot of the same people that have been peddling the Chinese coronavirus hysteria, they are skeptics.

00:31:23.000 They're David Hume skeptics when it comes to religion.

00:31:26.000 And they don't like theocracy.

00:31:28.000 They don't like theology.

00:31:30.000 They don't like dogma.

00:31:31.000 And yet when it came to this period of six months, they became more religiously fundamentalist than an evangelical Christian to this stuff.

00:31:41.000 Where all of a sudden it was all of the David Hume is ought problem.

00:31:45.000 It's reducto ad absurdium.

00:31:47.000 You eventually lead to the absurd if you're overly skeptical.

00:31:49.000 Like he goes too far.

00:31:49.000 Of course.

00:31:50.000 Yeah.

00:31:51.000 But I think it's actually very helpful to not to not forget that and not use it.

00:31:51.000 Precisely.

00:31:56.000 And I think that you need to be a skeptic in life.

00:31:59.000 However, the point I'm making, though, is that these people that have made a career out of criticizing those of us of faith, you and I, and they, the Bill Mars of the world, for example, right?

00:32:09.000 His whole life is trying to bring David Hume to the 21st century.

00:32:14.000 He had the film Religilists or whatever it was called, right?

00:32:17.000 He basically was asking the same pointed questions that Hume would ask.

00:32:21.000 It was all about trying to deconstruct religious dogma, right?

00:32:24.000 Same for most of the activist media.

00:32:26.000 And yet when it came to a moment where the professional medical class started to act with religious fervor and almost like zealots, all of that skepticism disappeared, Aaron, right?

00:32:39.000 It was as if they're skeptics against people of faith, but they're zealots when it comes to the medical community.

00:32:46.000 Why is that?

00:32:48.000 Because the so skepticism is, I mean, he's trying to bring David Hume.

00:32:52.000 I mean, I know, like, in terms of broader skeptic community and broader intellectual community, I mean, Hume is widely read.

00:32:59.000 So, I mean, I don't think you need to bring Hume to the world.

00:33:01.000 Plus, bringing a specific person to the world is quite religious, not very skeptical.

00:33:07.000 You know, everyone has mistakes in their philosophy.

00:33:10.000 Like, you know, Rousseau, I would say it's like he had, you know, 10% of his ideas were great and then 90% were bad.

00:33:15.000 Right.

00:33:16.000 So like, you know, everyone has a hit and misses and you can't just pick one guy and say like he is the figure, right?

00:33:23.000 Because that's quite religious.

00:33:25.000 But no, you're, you're, you're, I think this goes back to the sort of philosophy of science question when it comes to COVID in our culture is that if you if you understand more philosophical frameworks about how people think and behave, you would, you would, you would realize that humans are fundamentally hierarchical.

00:33:44.000 They have an orientation that something they constantly defer to to make judgments against.

00:33:49.000 And for Christians, it's, it's the Bible and Jesus, but for atheists, it's something else. 0.81

00:33:54.000 You can't escape that behavior which humans have.

00:33:58.000 Every single human has, whether it could be, it could be, if you're, if you're, even if you're Christian, it could be family, it could be country, it could be, you know, science, it could be, you know, politics, it could be environment, like all of the, all of the, like humans naturally create a godlike order and in whatever thing they think is like most important.

00:34:18.000 So when it came to COVID, that became a very sort of zealous appeal, constant appeals if like that was the only thing that mattered.

00:34:28.000 And the unfortunate thing is that the secondary consequences of that zealotry has led to basically we've lost all of our gains in extreme poverty.

00:34:38.000 Like we're basically back to the early 90s now.

00:34:41.000 Like we're going to have million, probably a million more TB, malaria, AIDS deaths in Africa.

00:34:47.000 Like there's not really any way to measure this pandemic, COVID specifically, in a way that's like actually appreciable in terms of we actually creatively save lives.

00:34:56.000 The lockdown deaths will, in terms of all the actuarial analysis, in terms of how like people now they're looking at things we actually know and measure very well, like malaria, for example, how many times we retreat that or how many times we get TB vaccines.

00:35:09.000 Those things we actually know and have very good data on outcomes, hard data, not like COVID, which is a complete mess and chaotic in terms of how we measure that.

00:35:17.000 We know fairly certain what's going to happen because so many people have not come to doctor to receive vaccines or so many kids are not in school or not being fed, for example, in Africa or lowering income communities in America.

00:35:29.000 So The zealotry of willing to ignore that is quite profound, which is why the scientists you see like lockdown skeptics is remarkably a bipartisan issue.

00:35:41.000 It's made up of lots of liberals who see the zealotry, who see the sort of insanity, centrists, libertarians, skeptics who have no place, independents, because they can look at the data and be like, wait a minute, this is not the way we should approach this issue because it is serious, but it's serious for a very known select group of people that you can look and see and you can tell that they're actually high risk.

00:36:07.000 The age-stratified risk between you, you and me, and an elder person nursing home is a thousand times different.

00:36:15.000 So that's pretty significant, right?

00:36:17.000 Like you and I are more likely to have a severe outcome of COVID about as much as if we have an accidental fall and die.

00:36:24.000 Like it's basically about this similar amount of risk versus someone that is in a nursing home.

00:36:29.000 Again, you could say sheltered in place already.

00:36:32.000 Someone who's in a nursing home is a much more controlled environment that you can implement anything.

00:36:37.000 So like DeSantis, going back to Fauci's criticism and Dr. Berks' criticism, I don't even think they understand what DeSantis is even doing.

00:36:44.000 Like because they say things as if it's like they don't even read his actual policy.

00:36:47.000 But if you read everything he's doing in nursing homes, do you read how he's actually trying to protect the vulnerable, implementing widespread testing, having COVID recovery wards, which again, actually Berks and Fauci, as far as I know, never actually recommended, but actually saved a lot of lives because if you're recovering from COVID, you could potentially still have infectious viral loads.

00:37:09.000 So putting you elsewhere from a highly susceptible population is way more wise.

00:37:15.000 And so instead, it's like COVID only.

00:37:19.000 So I give you another example about how some people are seeing the light.

00:37:23.000 So, you know, Bill Gates was very much on the pro lockdown, direct as severe as possible.

00:37:30.000 Since his Millennium Report, which measures poverty and other pathologies, was so depressing, he has changed his tune because he now sees the data and he goes, wow, this policy was a disaster.

00:37:42.000 He has not said that publicly, but if you read, watch his interviews, it's very clear that he has changed his mind.

00:37:48.000 Yeah, it's very clear he has changed his mind.

00:37:51.000 He's more committed to dogma as a scientist because he doesn't want to go back on his friends.

00:37:56.000 But if Bill Gates came out and said, wow, this was an awful mistake, he would change public opinion by 20 points overnight.

00:38:02.000 But he actually hates Donald Trump so much because he's a religious zealot.

00:38:06.000 His religion is different than you're and I. His religious is defeated, his religion is defeating Trump and conservatives.

00:38:12.000 Because that's because Gates, despite seeing the data, he will not speak out.

00:38:15.000 Please continue.

00:38:17.000 Yes, the ironic thing is like, you know, so much of our culture is like this weird kabuki theater that like everyone knows the elephant in the room, but no one wants to talk about it.

00:38:25.000 And so, you know, my personality is to poke at it and see what happens.

00:38:29.000 So, so like not believing that like lockdowns were basically kind of a BS policy and didn't work and like had a lot of these extra costs.

00:38:39.000 I think widespread people actually believe that.

00:38:41.000 But no one actually wants to say it.

00:38:43.000 Versus if apologies came out and said, hey, sorry, like, you know, I did the best I could.

00:38:49.000 You know, we had bad data at first.

00:38:51.000 I have better data now.

00:38:52.000 Here's what we're going to do to fix the situation.

00:38:54.000 I think the poor rating of that person would skyrocket because Americans are very forgiving as people.

00:39:00.000 What they don't like is being lied to.

00:39:02.000 They don't like being told that something is true and not true.

00:39:06.000 And that's the thing is like, I'm just waiting for somebody to say, I think closest person is DeSantis.

00:39:10.000 I think eventually DeSantis is going to say, okay, yeah, that was a big mistake.

00:39:13.000 Like the media and everything was pushing it.

00:39:18.000 He already said we're never going to do it again.

00:39:19.000 But by that admission, you're also subtly saying that the lockdown was not a good idea.

00:39:25.000 But I'm just waiting for a Public official to finally say it so that we can just sort of move past this like weird acceptance of something like an alternate reality.

00:39:35.000 It's like we're in the matrix, right?

00:39:36.000 And but but COVID is lockdowns are not the only thing.

00:39:41.000 There are a lot of other things going on in society where it feels like we're in the matrix.

00:39:44.000 We're like, what is going on?

00:39:45.000 We're like, like, you know, like criminalization now or like crime is political.

00:39:49.000 Like that, if you have a certain identity, it's not a crime now.

00:39:51.000 Like, it's just, it's just, it's crazy.

00:39:53.000 It's just like, like, what world are we in?

00:39:55.000 Like, what pill did you take?

00:39:57.000 Well, Aaron, what is the website where people can find out more information about what you're doing and the data that you're tracking?

00:40:03.000 You can just follow me on Twitter, A-G-I-N-N-T, Twitter, or you can go to rationalground.com.

00:40:10.000 That's a site that I contribute to.

00:40:12.000 That's you could say the first lockdown skeptics blog in America.

00:40:18.000 So devoted to reason and balance.

00:40:21.000 It's actually a lot of humanitarians.

00:40:25.000 Yes.

00:40:26.000 Well, Aaron, you're doing amazing work.

00:40:27.000 Thank you for joining us.

00:40:28.000 And closing, last question.

00:40:30.000 Is it time to fully reopen our country?

00:40:32.000 Oh, absolutely.

00:40:33.000 Yeah, with reasonable mitigation, high-risk populations, but we also should not tell people things that are not true that supposedly mitigates the risk, like masks.

00:40:44.000 There is not a lot of evidence.

00:40:46.000 It does things.

00:40:47.000 So do not tell people that if you are high risk and you wear a mask, somehow you're safe.

00:40:52.000 It doesn't work that way.

00:40:53.000 Like that's not the way that studies have been done about that.

00:40:55.000 We have no idea.

00:40:56.000 We have good physics evidence, but that's not the same thing as the practical application of a mask in public spaces among people who are untrained to use it.

00:41:08.000 So we need to be honest and fair with people and treat them like adults.

00:41:13.000 Do not treat them like your children.

00:41:15.000 Like, you know, these magical beans will work, right?

00:41:18.000 Like that's not that pseudoscience, it's witchcraft.

00:41:21.000 Like shake my broom and the virus disappears.

00:41:24.000 So we have to be realistic with people and tell them things that actually work, like washing your hands, distancing.

00:41:31.000 If you wear a mask in a crowded space, what?

00:41:33.000 I mean, I would say the evidence shows that that may do something, but it's not the same thing as other public health people saying good as a vaccine.

00:41:40.000 That is profoundly irresponsible because that is not true.

00:41:45.000 I mean, vaccine science is way more, has significantly more evidence behind it.

00:41:52.000 And it goes through rigorous testing than like what masks have been done.

00:41:57.000 And this is why the Nordic countries, other European countries have been much more balanced about masks because they look at the data like it's just not there.

00:42:04.000 So not also recognizing the fact that the second year consultants is that.

00:42:08.000 But in terms of schools, in terms of businesses, in terms of like free society, absolutely.

00:42:14.000 Human rights don't stop because there's a new novel, coronavirus, that actually has a fairly low mortality rate compared to the Spanish flu or something like that.

00:42:24.000 Human rights do not stop.

00:42:26.000 It didn't stop during wartime.

00:42:30.000 It is something that is universal and good.

00:42:33.000 So we as a society have to accept that there are going to be different downsides as with all various decisions that we make in public policy.

00:42:41.000 And the downsides of continuing the pattern of locking people in and out, scaring them to death, will fundamentally lead to much more significant pathologies than anything that COVID will bring to our nation.

00:42:59.000 Well, Aaron, thank you so much for joining our program.

00:43:01.000 You're doing amazing work.

00:43:02.000 Keep being skeptical.

00:43:04.000 We love it.

00:43:05.000 Thanks for fighting for truth.

00:43:06.000 Thanks, Charlie.

00:43:07.000 Thanks.

00:43:07.000 See you soon.

00:43:11.000 What a great conversation that was at Aaron Ginn.

00:43:13.000 If you guys want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com.

00:43:17.000 Please consider supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash support, charliekirk.com/slash support.

00:43:23.000 And if you want to win a signed copy of the MAGA Doctrine, type in Charlie Kirk Show to your podcast provider, hit subscribe and a five-star review, screenshot it, email it to us at freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:43:34.000 Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.

00:43:35.000 Thanks so much for listening, everybody.

00:43:37.000 Talk to you soon.

00:43:39.000 God bless.

The Charlie Kirk Show - October 01, 2020

How COVID Killed Science with Statistician Aaron Ginn

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript