> At the end he writes, "From everything I’ve heard, talking to doctors and reading the background material, the Bakersfield doctors are probably not to be trus

> At the end he writes, "From everything I’ve heard, talking to doctors and reading the background material, the Bakersfield doctors are probably not to be trusted. But the functional impact of removing their videos (in addition to giving them press they wouldn’t otherwise have had) is to stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed, like when the damage to the economy..." With all due respect to Taibbi as an outstanding Journalist, in making that statement, he employed the flawed “crash course in relying on the opinions of others” he illustrated in the beginning of the article. From my own experience, I have been unable to engage in meaningful discussion about economic impact or death rates associated with poverty with anyone. It’s either “fu reopen now” or “are you crazy you selfish murderer?”. The most concerning discussion I had was with a friend who is County Counsel in one of the Big 6 NorCal Counties that initiated the first lockdown. He’s writing the orders but not setting policy. I asked him why we aren’t talking about opening non-essential businesses with social distancing? He said “the medical experts haven’t green lit that yet”. So I further inquired “are there any economists or sociologists at the table”. He said no. When I said “poverty has a death rate too”, his response was “that’s just a Trump talking point”. I made sure he understood I had read a study by Columbia University in 2001 when unemployment was 4%, and they pinned the death toll from poverty at about 3x the current CV-19 death toll. Like, I said he’s not setting policy but this type of blindness based on politics mentioned by Taibbi is very apparent to me with the lack of experts other than medical experts at the policy making table. That’s pretty fucking scary to me when at a time like this we need to remain objective. To analyze data. To consider all conclusions may be incorrect or may not be as optimal as others. And bottom line, if the goal is to save lives, then the death toll of the disease must be weighed against the death toll of any mitigations.