Monday, January 31, 2022

Why No Wildfire In Africa?

The Omicron surge of cases has been like a wildfire around the world..

It has swept across cities, states and countries similar to the way in which a wildfire burns through a dry prairie.

It has consumed continents.

Look at what has transpired in Europe over the last six weeks in terms of new daily Covid-19 cases.

By comparison, it makes Covid look like a minor annoyance for the previous two years.

(All charts below are population adjusted per million people).

The same is true in North America although the surge has begun subsiding. 

There is no place that the impact of Omicron has been so stark as in Australia. 

Australia had 5 times more cases of Covid in January, 2022 than during the entire previous 21 months of the pandemic.

You see a similar pattern in South America.

And Asia.

The Omicron variant was first identified in Botswana and South Africa on the continent of Africa.

That would lead you believe that the Omicron wildfire burned the most intensely on that continent.

You would be wrong.

The Omicron wildfire barely shows up when comparing Europe, North America and Australia to Africa.

The same holds true when comparing it with all of the major continents.

When you look at Africa by itself, rather in comparison with other continents, you can can see that there has been a recent surge in Covid cases that is now declining.

However, it is also clear that the Omicron surge has still been much more muted there than it has in other areas of the world.

That is also evident in looking at the data for South Africa in isolation where Omicron was first identified.

Why is this?

If you looked at the low Covid cases in Africa and Asia throughout the pandemic, compared to the rest of the world, it might be easy to consider that there might be a genetic factor involved.

Are those with Asian and African genetic makeups somehow not as susceptible to the virus?

However, that conclusion does not hold up in looking at CDC case data in the United States in which African Americans and Asian Americans (as well as other minorities) all had higher case rates than Whites as of the peak of Omicron cases the week of January 8, 2022.


If you were a vaccine skeptic you might conclude that the vaccines were actually helping the virus rather than hindering it.

Africa has the lowest vaccination rates while also having the lowest case rates.

How is that possible if you are to believe the narrative about how effective the vaccines are supposed  to be?

The most likely explantation is age.

The older someone is the more difficult it is for one's natural immune system to defend against the infection.

The median age on the continent of Africa is 18 years of age.

It is 42 in Europe and 35 in North America. It is 31 in Asia.


It also could be a function of testing.

The more you test the more cases you are going to find.

For example, compare daily cases in Israel vs. Palestine.

Then compare tests in Israel and Palestine.

Israel is conducting 26 times the number of tests per capita as Palestine.

That could explain the case difference by itself.

One of the more interesting theories I have seen about why Africa and Asia have not see the same wildfire of Omicron as Europe and the United States is that a prior version of Omicron was circulating in Asia and Africa for up to two years before Covid was first identified.

This theory is based on the fact that Omicron appears to be more genetically diverse (older) than the original Wuhan virus. In simple terms, it appears to be more like a distant cousin than a direct descendant of the original Wuhan virus.

Those who subscribe to this theory believe that Omicron was circulating widely within Asia and Africa for many, many months before the Wuhan virus appeared. It may have its origins as far back as 2017 in China.

This may explain why infection rates for the Wuhan virus were also lower in Asia and Africa than other parts of the world as some cross immunity was built up in these areas of the world before the Wuhan virus began to spread around the globe.

This is a tweet from someone who believes that Omicron does not have a natural origin while also graphically showing how far removed Omicron is from other variants of concerns such as Delta.

I am not an epidemiologist but that does not look like a close relative of a recent mutation.


Some believe this  might mean that the two related viruses both actually escaped from the Wuhan lab separated by a couple of years. The parent of Omicron that might date back over four years and the Wuhan virus two years ago. 

No matter how it occurred something seemingly has conferred greater immunity against Covid to those in Asia and Africa over the last two years than the rest of the world.

In the chart below, Zone III, which includes North America, South America and Europe has 16% of the world's population but has had 62% of the Covid deaths since the pandemic began.

Zone I, which includes Asia and Africa, has 45% of the world's population but has only accounted for 3% of the deaths.

The "Ethical Skeptic" believes it must be due to an Omicron ancestor that was circulating in these region of the world as far  back as in 2018.


The lack of an Omicron wildfire in Africa is just another one of the mysteries of Covid.

It defies a normal and natural explanation.

Just as almost everything else does about the virus.

One thing is for sure.

You can bet Tony Fauci and his friends know far, far more about all of this than they will ever admit.

Will the truth and justice ever be served in unraveling these mysteries?

Friday, January 28, 2022

Germany, Russia and Ukraine

Russia has amassed 125,000 troops along the Ukraine border amid concerns from some in the West that it has designs on invading Ukraine.

Joe Biden has threatened harsh sanctions against Russia if it invades Ukraine.

NATO allies in Europe have also warned Russia about moving aggressively against Ukraine.

One NATO country that has not is Germany.

I find that interesting in that Germany was originally a large reason that NATO was formed after World War II. NATO's mission was to insure that the communists of the Soviet Union would not threaten free and democratic nations in Europe beyond the foothold they already had in East Germany and Eastern Europe.

The United States and the NATO countries in Europe pledged to stand together committed to democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. against the Soviet Russians.

In 1962, NATO members spent an average of 7.1% of their respective national government budgets on defense. The United States spent 8.7%. The UK spent 6.2% and Germany spent 4.8%.

(All of these numbers and those below on NATO spending can be found in this document).

By 1982, that average had dropped to 4.8% overall. The United States spent 6.4%, the UK spent 4.8% and Germany had decreased their defense spending to 2.9%.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the reunification of Germany and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 changed the perceived threat to the NATO countries.

All of the original countries started reducing defense expenditures. In addition, beginning in the late 1990's many of the countries who used to be controlled by the Soviets (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc) joined NATO.


The original 12 countries in NATO in 1949 has expanded to 30 today.

Russia argues that its security will be threatened if Ukraine also eventually becomes part of NATO. That is a big reason that Russia wants to insure that the other European countries in NATO do not get too cozy with Ukraine.

In 2005, the average defense expenditures of NATO nations had fallen to 2.7% of GDP. The United States was spending 3.8%, the UK 2.1% and Germany 1.3%.

By 2006, faced with ever decreasing defense expenditures by member nations, NATO established a guideline that all NATO nations needed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense to ensure the alliance's military readiness.

When Donald Trump ran for President he made an issue of other NATO members not fulfilling their obligation in meeting the 2% guideline.

The liberal elites and globalist argued that Trump was trying to undermine NATO.

I never could understand how pushing allies to strengthen their defense posture and commitment to NATO was undermining the alliance but such is the "logic" that flows from The New York Times.

I wrote a blog post in February, 2017 to provide context on the NATO issue and how the criticism of Trump was off base.

The current minimum defense expenditure that a member country is supposed to meet as a percent of GDP is set at 2%.  However, only 5 out of 28 member states are meeting that target. Of course, the United States is doing much more than that meaning that most NATO members are getting a free ride from us.

This inequality is there for all to see but Donald Trump is the only one willing to talk about it?

And he is then criticized for it by those who say he "doesn't understand" and is putting Europe in danger?

The main purpose of NATO from its inception was for the member countries to defend each other from the possibility of the communist Soviet Union taking control of their nation. Who is more at risk of this occurring---the European countries who are NATO members or the United States?

It would seem since the Europeans are the most at risk that they would be more than willing to pay the bill to defend themselves. Why rely so much on the United States? Is that fair? That is the main point that Trump is arguing.

In 2016, Germany was spending 1.2% on defense expenditures, the UK was 1.8%, Canada was 1.2%, Italy was 1.5% and Belgium was .9%.

The United States was spending 3.2%.

Did Donald Trump have a point or didn't he?

Trump was successful in getting many of the NATO nations to start spending more on defense.

This chart shows NATO defense expenditures as of 2021.

The United States also increased spending on defense under Trump. He didn't just browbeat the other countries to do more and sit back and do nothing in return.

The United States went from 3.2% in 2016 to 3.5% in 2021.

Germany went from 1.2% to 1.5%.

The UK increased spending from 1.8% to 2.3%.

Canada bumped its spending from 1.2% to 1.4%.

Even Belgium went from .9% to 1.1%.

How is this bad for NATO?

However, here comes The New York Times this week arguing that Trump undermined NATO and did little to bolster relations with Germany during his time in office.

The New York Times has therefore decided that the fact that Germany has not been joining its fellow NATO members in showing a united front in condemning Russia for its troop build-up on the Ukraine border is Trump's fault.

It looks to me as if Germany is the one undermining NATO.

Germany’s government, under its new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has ruled out any arms exports to Ukraine. It is also delaying a shipment of howitzers from Estonia to Ukraine. It may have kept British planes from using German airspace when sending military supplies to Ukraine last week.

Most significantly, the Scholz government has been vague about whether a Russian invasion would lead to the shutdown of an undersea gas pipeline between Germany and Russia. The pipeline, the Nord Stream 2, will become a major source of energy for Germany and a major source of revenue for Russia once it begins operating, likely in the next year. Scholz recently described Nord Stream 2 as a “private-sector project.”


Germany's failure to condemn Russia is Trump's fault?

I have an alternative explanation.

Germany has backed itself into a corner in its reliance on Russian energy.

The lights go out and people will freeze if Russian oil and gas does not make it to Germany.

The reality is that Germany has made itself vulnerable by giving blind allegiance to the climate change alarmists.

It just shut down half of its remaining nuclear plants on December 31, 2021. The others are scheduled to be shut down by the end of 2022.

Germany has already said NEIN to coal.

It has sworn off oil to power its electric generating capacity.

It is in the process of doing the same to nuclear power.

That doesn't leave many energy sources to power the electrical generating plans that power those giant German manufacturing plants.

It also makes you wonder where all the electricity generation is going to come from that is supposed to be the source of power for all of those electric cars that Mercedes, BMW and Volkswagen say they are going to manufacture over the next decade.


Germany seems to be placing most of their future bets on solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy to power its economy. Germany is already reliant on renewables for over 40% of its power generation,

That seems to me to be a very bad bet.

Trump warned Germany and Europe about the dangers of this policy.

The sun does not always shine in Germany.

This is particularly true in the winter when it is typically gray, gray and gray as this chart of sunshine quantity in Germany shows. 


Are those electric cars only going to run in the summer?

The wind also does not always blow which makes wind generation unreliable.

In particular, in the past year winds have diminished across Europe cutting energy production from wind turbines.

This has led to a new term, "Global Stilling" which predictably is also being blamed on climate change.

That means the Germans also need something more reliable than renewables, cleaner than coal and oil and safer than nuclear to keep the lights on.

That is where natural gas comes in.

That has also proven to be problematic this year as natural gas supplies into Germany have been curtailed from Russia. Whether the supply has been constrained by cold weather in Russia or Putin is using it for political leverage is unclear.

Bloomberg reporter Javier Blas shows how much gas volumes into Europe and Germany have contracted this winter.

Combined with the cold weather and limited solar and wind sources, Germany and much of Europe has been forced to revert to coal to keep the lights on.

On January 15, Germany was relying on coal (45%) and natural gas (15%) for its electricity generation.

I wonder if Greta Thunberg knows about this?

It seems that shutting down those nuclear power plants may not have been the best idea.

You also begin to see why Germany is not very eager to upset Russia and have those natural gas supplies cut off.

That is also why Germany is very eager to see the Nord Stream II gas pipeline completed that will bring natural gas directly to Europe and bypass the current pipeline that runs through (you guessed it!) Ukraine.

Various sanctions had been put in place during the Trump administration in order to prevent completion of the pipeline that would make Europe more dependent on Russia and also weaken Ukraine.

The Trump administration also wanted Germany and our  European allies to buy more liquid natural gas from the United States to benefit natural gas producers in the United States.

What did Biden do when he took office?

He took the sanctions off of the Nord Stream II Pipeline.

At the same time, he stopped construction of the Keystone II Pipeline from Canada to the U.S.

All of this motivated me to write a blog last July on all of this entitled, "Which Side Are They On?"

It is really hard to make sense of it all. Biden seems to be more interested in assisting Russia and Germany than the United States.

In the meantime, in Germany, the average customer paid .32/kWh for electricity in 2021.

However, prices are expected to climb another 60%+  for German households in 2022.

Some 4.2 million German households will see their electricity bills rise by an average 63.7% this year and 3.6 million stand to pay 62.3% higher gas bills as suppliers pass on record wholesale rates, data showed on Tuesday.

Yes, it is quite a mess.

Germany is finding out it is cold and dark at the climate change altar.

It is hard to blame anyone else for the spot they are in. 

I can't blame Joe Biden for Germany's plight. However, he hasn't been much help either with his blundering and inconsistent statements regarding Russia and Ukraine.

He also attempted to mollify Germany by taking the sanctions off of the Nord Stream II pipeline only to find that they are now turning their back on him as he attempts to build support to confront Russia about Ukraine.

Despite what The New York Times thinks, Donald Trump is blameless. He tried to help Germany to help themselves but they just let themselves grow more dependent on Russia trying to follow the climate change agenda.

It seems that Germany has also forgotten a lot of history if they somehow think that Russia is their friend.

It will not be the first time that Germany has made a major miscalculation.

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Bleaker for Biden

Every week it seems the news gets bleaker for Biden.

If I was a Biden adviser I would cringe with the arrival of each new poll.

This is a sampling of some of the bad news for Biden in a NBC News poll released last week.

72% believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Just 5% believe Biden has done better than expected. 36% believe he has done worse than expected.

Biden's approval with Independents is 36%. That is -32 points since April.

He is -19 points with Black voters, -16 with 18-34 age group voters, -11 with Hispanics and -10 points with women since April. These are all key groups who supported Biden's election.

Most tellingly, only 28% of respondents in an AP/NORC poll released last week would like to see Biden run for office in 2024.

Less than half of identified Democrats want him to run again.

That is bleak news for Biden.

Donald Trump fared no better on that score in the same poll. Only 27% stated they would like to see Trump run in 2024.

Therefore, this puts us in the interesting position right now in that both of the presumptive favorites to be on the ballot in 2024 have about 3/4 of the American people saying NO THANKS to either of them.

Another problem the Democrats have is that Vice President Kamala Harris is proving to be one of the most unpopular politicians in the United States.

Kamala Harris has only a 32% approval rating in the NBC poll.

That is -17 points in one year and the worse decline in popularity for a VP in modern history.

Rasmussen was out with a new poll yesterday that showed that 50% of voters STRONGLY DISAPPROVED of Biden's job performance. 18% strongly approved.

That puts Biden's current net rating at -32.


Trump's worst rating was -26.  However, that was in the summer of 2017 when all we heard about was the fake Russian collusion narrative. Trump was at a net index of 0 on election day, 2020.

It appears that the only thing that could be saving Biden from outright rebellion in his own party is the fact that the alternative would put them in a worse position with the voters right now.

A new Harvard/Harris poll puts all of this in better perspective.

It has Trump +6 in a head to head match in 2024 with Biden.

Trump is +10 if he squares off with Kamala Harris.

Biden's popular vote margin was +4.5 points in 2020. This means there has been a swing of about 10 points away from Biden if this poll is accurate.

It is also interesting to note that even though the AP/NORC poll showed that only 27% wanted to see Trump on the ballot, he still handily beats both Biden and Harris.

The most likely alternative to Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, can do no better than a dead heat with Harris in the poll.

Yes, it is early, but Trump has the advantage of being a known quantity despite the fact that a substantial number of people would not like to see him on the ballot in 2024. It is also true that many voters do not know enough about Ron DeSantis or other possible GOP alternatives to Trump right now.

As I have written before, the worse things get, the better Trump will look to voters. There are many things people do not like about Trump but it would be unwise to discount him at this point.

Consider this interesting data that I found deep within the NBC New Poll which indicates that there is a substantial reservoir of positive feelings of how well people believed things were going for them during the Trump years before Covid hit.

This was the question asked in the poll.

Compared with other years, do you consider 2021 was one the best years for the United States, above average, about average, below average, or one of the worst years for the United States.

Just 1% said 2021 was one the best years. 4% said it was above average. 44% said it was one of the worst years and 37% said it was below average.

Below is a chart I prepared of the % of poll respondents who felt the stated year was either one of the best or above average in other years this question was asked in the NBC News poll.

What stands out are the high percentage of people who stated that 2017-2019 were one of the best (or above average) for the United States.

NBC must not have polled this question in 2020, or in some other years (notably 2010 and 2011, but there is no other period in the last 30 years that Americans felt better about the United States than in the first three years of the Trump administration. 

There is not another period that is even close.

It is quite remarkable, especially the high percentages who referred to 2018 and 2019 as "one of the best years for the United States".

That is one of the reasons I think it is too early to count out Donald Trump. He does have a record to fall back on---good and bad. However, those are very good numbers to have in your favor if things continue to deteriorate.

The news is beginning to look bleaker for Biden on that score as well. What record does he have to point to?

The #1 issue that Americans want the government to focus on in 2022 is the economy. Nothing else is even close according to the AP poll.

Covid is -16 points from a year ago.

However, inflation is still eating away at household incomes.

The stock market has also started to stagger.

The NASDAQ composite is now below where it was a year ago.

The S&P 500 is below where it was six months ago and has declined almost 10% since January 1.

The Biden administration been working hard to claim that it has produced a record number of jobs in its first year.


However, the reality is the job growth just involves recovery from the Covid-related job losses during the previous two years.

What is more telling is where that job growth is coming from.

It is not coming from Biden or policies in various Democrat-controlled states.

Most of the job growth is coming from Republican-controlled states.


Job growth is lagging most in Democrat-controlled states like New York and New Jersey.


What is Joe Biden doing that is creating many more jobs in red states than in blue states?

All of the states with the highest unemployment rates are Democrat-controlled that voted for Joe Biden.


You can also see some interesting trends in domestic migration between April, 2020 and June, 2021.

People are leaving states that have restricted their freedoms and have moved in increasing numbers to the Sunbelt where there are less restrictions on businesses, children are being taught in school, job growth is greatest and salaries and wages are increasing the fastest.

What did Joe Biden have to do with this?


Joe Biden can try to talk his way out of the bleak situation he is in.

However, the American people seem to be beyond talk and promises from Biden at this point.

I have seen some comments from political analysts stating that Biden is too far gone in these polls to recover.

I never say never in politics.

It is bleak for Biden but how can it get much worse? How much lower can he go in the polls?

However, Biden has always been better at talking than doing in his years in politics.

The American people are done with his talk.

It is time for Biden to stand and deliver. 

But he first needs to crawl out of the dark, bleak hole he finds himself in one year into his term.

Monday, January 24, 2022

Geert Vanden Bossche Update

I wrote about the theories of Geert Vanden Bossche last September in a post titled, "What Is Going On?".

Geert Vanden Bossche is a PhD virologist who is also a DVM. He has spent his entire career working with vaccines, their development and their deployment.

Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD

Vanden Bossche is anything but an anti-vaxxer. In fact, at one time he was Senior Program Officer with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation working on their global health and vaccine initiatives. He also worked for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) as Senior Ebola Program Manager.

Vanden Bossche warned the WHO almost a year ago that conducting a mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic is a prescription for disaster. The vaccinations were going to lead to "viral immune escape" by which the virus will continue to mutate around the Covid vaccines creating more variants that will be increasingly dangerous to mankind.

His thesis is similar to what we hear about the overuse of antibiotics to treat bacterial infections. The more that they are used (or overused) the greater the chance that the bacterial infections will get stronger and eventually evade all antibiotics.

In his open letter to the WHO, he argued that we were heading to a disastrous situation of our own making if we did not cease the mass vaccination efforts. We could be planting the seeds for a mutant virus that could not be handled by the human immune system. 

This would be of particular danger to those who were vaccinated because their natural immune systems would be compromised by the vaccines. However, new variants would also pose risks to the unvaccinated. Their innate immunity might not be able to defend against multiple variants in short succession.

A week after I wrote about Vanden Bossche's theories he appeared in a webcast with Dr. Robert Malone in which he predicted that Israel would be facing a huge wave of Covid cases in the future that the vaccine would prove useless in preventing due to a new variant.


What has happened in Israel since he made that prediction?

I wrote at that time that I did not know if Vanden Bossche's theories were sound. In fact, what he was saying was 180 degrees opposed to almost everyone else who claimed that mass vaccinations were the way out of the pandemic.

However, I wrote at that time that the predictions of Dr. Vanden Bossche matched what I saw unfolding in the data to a greater degree than anything else I had seen to that point.

Vanden Bossche also stated in September that we would see surges in other countries beyond Israel, high and low vaccination rates alike. However, surges would be more dramatic in the high vaccinated countries where innate immunity would be more compromised than in low vaccination countries.

To this point, compare new cases in Israel (high vaccination rates + boosters) with South Africa where Omicron was first identified but which has only fully vaccinated 27% of its population with almost no booster doses at all.

Does this data suggest that the vaccines are helping or hurting?

I guess we can count what we are seeing in heavily vaccinated Israel and unvaccinated South Africa today as another example where the data is confirming Vanden Bossche's predictions.

Let's compare Vanden Bossche's  predictions with one that Dr. Anthony Fauci made in June, 2021 about the effects of the vaccines.

“If you have a very high percentage of people vaccinated (50%-70%), you’re not going to see a substantial blip. You may see a little, but not anything that even resembles a surge,” 

"Not anything that even resembles a surge", Dr. Fauci?

It is just another example of why Tony Fauci does not have the greatest credibility in my book.

A NBC poll released last week indicates that I am not alone.

Trust in Fauci has substantially eroded since the beginning of the pandemic.


Only 8% said they did not trust Fauci in April, 2020. That percentage is now 43%.

60% stated they trusted Fauci in April, 2020. That percentage has dropped to 40%.

I guarantee you that 99.9% of the people in the United States have never heard of Geert Vanden Bossche.

That is because he has been ignored and censored by most of traditional and social media due to the fact that his views do not support the narrative.

As I wrote back in September. his views should be considered seriously. There is too much at stake. 

Dr. Vanden Bossche may not be right. I hope he isn't. However, he should be heard and his views should be debated openly and widely. That is something Vanden Bossche has wanted since he wrote his open letter to the WHO in March. However, it has never happened.

If what he says is a 1% possibility it should be considered seriously. The consequences about mass vaccinations is just too horrific if we are wrong about the current policy.

What is Vanden Bossche saying now?

He says that the current Covid vaccine boosters should be discontinued immediately. They raise the threat of additional variants forming and spreading.

A vaccine booster may provide a very limited amount of additional protection to the individual who gets boosted but that protection would probably not be effective for more than a few weeks. Any potential side effects would outweigh the benefits of the booster jab.

He actually believes that the dominant Omicron variant is a blessing right now in that it is more infectious and less virulent than some other variants we have seen.

This provides a greater opportunity to build herd immunity.

It also provides those who have previously been vaccinated to be able to allow their natural innate immunity to have the opportunity to recalibrate and reprogram itself as the vaccine antibodies fade away.

Vanden Bossche continues to believe that vaccinating children is the worse possible thing we can do right now. They have low risks from infection and have the greatest ability to allow society to build a reservoir of herd immunity to the virus.

Without sterilizing vaccines that can prevent infection and transmission (such as the small pox and polio vaccines), herd immunity is the only way to put an end to the pandemic.

He also believes that it will be a grave error to deploy an "Omicron specific booster" (as opposed to the current boosters) as he believes this will further accelerate immune escape and risk more dangerous variants developing. 

Vanden Bossche also believes that those who might take an Omicron booster would be putting themselves at increased risk to antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) in which those vaccinated would be at a far greater risk for serious disease from new variants than those who did not take the shot.

Although a number of "experts" have recently opined that Omicron may bring us to the end of the pandemic, Vanden Bossche is not so sure. He believes as we continue with the mass vaccination program we will continue to see more immune pressure on the virus and more chances for new variants.

It should be clear by now that all that you have been told over the last two years has not proven to be true.

Perhaps it is time to consider listening to a broader range of opinions as you attempt to evaluate what is best for you, your family and loved ones....and our society as a we move forward.

You might want to consider keeping the name Geert Vanden Bossche in mind as you do that. Just knowing his name puts you in an elite group of  0.1%.

Vanden Bossche may not be right on where this goes next. However, it is hard to dismiss what he has  predicted and what we see in the data.

However, if he is not right, he cannot be anywhere close to being as wrong as Tony Fauci has been on any number of issues over the last two years.

In fact, almost exactly two years ago Dr. Fauci was saying this to the American people regarding the Coronavirus that we were hearing about in Wuhan, China.


Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), said Sunday the American public shouldn’t worry about the coronavirus outbreak in China. 

“It’s a very, very low risk to the United States,” Fauci said during an interview with radio show host John Catsimatidis.

My view it is better to be informed on all sides of an issue than possibly be misinformed from a single, slanted narrative.

What more is there to say?

You need to be careful about who and what you believe.