Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force for response to coronavirus pandemic, plans to warn a panel of senators on Tuesday about the possible danger of new COVID-19 outbreaks if states start to reopen their economies too quickly.
In a hearing, which senators will have to hold by videoconference rather than in person because of newly discovered cases within the White House, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, plans to stress "the danger of trying to open the country prematurely."
In such context, it is fair and reasonable to ask him the following questions:
- What evidence does he have to prove that the stay-at-home approach — that actually deprived the American people from getting natural immunity against the virus — is not the reason for increasing the possibility that they get COVID-19 infection after reopening and possible in a more deadly way (as they have weak immunity against it because of his decision to lock people down in their homes)? It is reasonable in this context to remind him that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that admitted that his initial decision to shut down all schools in New York could have contributed to the many deaths we see there today. Cuomo said, "We closed everything down," "That was our public health strategy." The governor mentioned the particular problem of confining the young with older people, thereby forcing possible asymptomatic carriers of the disease in proximity with more vulnerable individuals.
- How can he explain that if the US had followed the approach of Sweden that did not order people to stay at home, allowed restaurants and almost all normal daily life activities, the number of deaths in United States today would be only slightly higher than the U.S. total number of deaths. This calculation is based of their number of deaths per million population due to COVID-19 in Sweden (approximately 300) multiplied by the number of populations of the U.S. (330 million.) Today Sweden is very close to achieving the desired natural immunity for their society, and we are still struggling to reopen America.
- When he decided the "stay-at-home approach" for healthy rather than sick people, was this based on any scientific study to prove that the stay-at-home approach brings better results than the natural immunity approach with caring for the vulnerable? OR was this decision recommended by him based on evidence-based science? In other words, what was the scientific data he used to recommend the idea of isolating healthy people and paralyzing our economy instead of isolating the sick and protecting the vulnerable?
- Does he have any valid statistics to prove that the number of deaths and morbidities due to COVID-19 are likely to be higher than the number of deaths and morbidities due to the lockdowns and the damage to our economy? These deaths in such cases could be attributed to higher rates of depression and suicide, delays in treating other medical conditions, crimes related to poverty.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid (aka Tarek Abdelhamid) M.D.; Mlitt (Edu) has testified before Congress and before the European Parliament. Dr. Hamid is the author of "Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It." Read Dr. Tawfik Hamid's Reports — More Here.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.