ht? Just obviously it couldn't be more obvious, right?

I disagree. I'm going to side with Dr. Birx. And here's why. Statistically speaking, what are the odds that your diabetes was going to kill you that day? Yeah, what if you had diabetes? You probably didn't get it on Tuesday. You've probably had diabetes for 15 years. If you have diabetes for 15 years, you go in one week for coronavirus and you die. Is it statistically invalid to say, well, we can't guarantee it was the coronavirus, but what are the odds that you've had this problem for 15 years and this is the week you died?

So I'm going to say it is true that you can't tell. You cannot be a hundred percent sure that somebody went into the hospital and died because of the coronavirus. But I do feel confident there from a statistical point of view it's probably well over ninety percent accurate. Well over ninety percent. Anybody disagree?

Now add to that how many people died at home of a heart attack who also had coronavirus but it didn't make any difference because they died of a heart attack and nobody checks for a coronavirus. Yeah, the EMTs come to your house. They see, I had a heart attack. You've never been diagnosed for coronavirus. How did they code it? Well sure, they coded it as a heart attack because that's what it was. So you have a truth to this problem in coding these things, but it could work either way. It could be a little push and pull, not necessarily equal, but I'm just saying that there might be inaccuracies in both directions.

And in my opinion Dr. Birx is on completely sound statistical ground because the odds that you've had cancer for six months but this is the week you died could be because of the cancer. Could be. But if you're also struggling for oxygen and your lungs are collapsing exactly like a coronavirus patient and you've got what the ER doctors call those distinguishing red eyes, apparently your eyes get red around the edges, and it could be a coincidence that you died of something else. But I think statistically I'm going to say that there is no evidence to support the conservative point of view that there is obviously overcounting. There could be overcounting, but the evidence that's used to suggest that there is is completely invalid.

Somebody says, Scott, I disagree. Oh, you're so close to getting blocked. If you had said "Scott, you're wrong," I would have blocked you because you know I always tell you that you can tell me why I'm wrong. Because even though you don't have that much room in the text, you could suggest the topic of which I'm wrong. So you might have said, for example, I think you're forgetting this factor. You don't have to go into details. You could say, have you considered this? It doesn't take many characters. But if you're just telling me I'm wrong, you get blocked. Whoever said "Scott, I disagree," you're right on the edge of getting blocked, but I'm going to let you go with a warning, okay?

Who benefits from extended lockdown? Crazy talk. That's crazy talk. All right. Everybody who believes that the lockdown is some kind of a clever scheme by some kind of political or other operatives, in my opinion that's crazy talk and you should just stop doing it. All right. Now that's not to say that there are people who are thinking, well, if we had to have a crisis, might as well get something out of it. I'm sure there are those people. But in general I think nobody's doing this for advantage. I think people are biased the way they're biased. CNN will always criticize the president no matter what, but you sort of discount that in your mind.

Speaking of the press and the president, there are some, a couple of funny things. If you watch the press conference, you saw President Trump go full Simon Cowell. Now you could argue that Simon Cowell is really just Trump because they both like to insult their critics. But the thing about Simon Cowell is that he would be cruel to people who were just trying to do their job, you know, just trying to sing. So Simon Cowell had that special kind of cruelness. There wasn't anybody who did anything to Simon Cowell. President Trump generally has the kind of cruelness where he's just getting back at people who criticized him first. So Simon was worse in the sense that he'll criticize somebody that didn't do anything to him first.

So with that in mind, there was a reporter for, I don't know who it was. I didn't recognize him. So the reporter starts to ask the question of President Trump and he starts, he goes, quote, "checking on oil again today." And then the president cuts him off in mid-sentence. He goes, where is it today? Give me the price. And the reporter says, I'm not sure, to be honest. And then Trump says, how could you ask a question if you don't know the price? Then the reporter says, I'll look it up. And Trump cuts him off in disgust. Just let me go to somebody else. It was the coldest thing I've ever seen the president do. You don't know the price of oil? You don't know? I'll go to somebody who knows how to ask a question.

And oh my God, I was watching that and I just thought to myself, oh my God. Because I was putting myself in the shoes of this reporter. And again, I don't know what network he was from. Maybe somebody here can tell me. But since they have to take turns even getting into the press room. So first of all, it's the hardest thing in the world to get into the room in a normal time. In a normal time it'd be hard to be important enough to be in that room with the president at the press conference. But because of social distancing, they're only letting them sit every third chair or whatever it is. So to get into the room under these conditions is very rare. And I didn't recognize him, so I don't know if he's ever been in the room before. It might have been the first time he's ever asked a question to the president on live TV. I don't know that, but I've never seen him before.

And I'm thinking, imagine what his day was like. The reporter imagined when he found out, okay, this very rare honor that you're going to be in the room, it's going to be national TV, a