[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 27, 2020)]
[House]
[Page H2286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FOLLOW THE SCIENCE, FOR A CHANGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, America enjoyed 
the most promising economic expansion in our lifetimes, lifting 
millions of Americans out of poverty, boosting wages for American 
workers, and producing the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years. 
Today, the American economy lies in rubble, with tens of millions of 
Americans thrown into unemployment, poverty, and despair.
  Now, that damage was not done by a virus. It was done by ordering 
entire populations into indefinite home detention, shuttering countless 
businesses, and desecrating the most fundamental human rights that our 
Constitution demands our government to protect.
  Now, we are told to follow the science and data. That would be nice, 
for a change.
  What does the science tell us about the severity of COVID-19? Well, 
we know that about 80 percent of those who get it either have no 
symptoms at all or experience it as a mild respiratory infection. In 
New York, 74 percent of those who died were over age 65 and six one-
hundredths of 1 percent were under the age of 18. Three-quarters of 
those who died had underlying medical conditions.
  So how does it follow the science to close the schools where it poses 
the least danger while packing infected patients into nursing homes 
where it poses the greatest danger?
  Once epidemiologists began surveying general populations, they 
discovered the disease isn't nearly as severe as the claims that set 
off the global panic. Researchers at Stanford University surveyed the 
population of Santa Clara, California, and estimated a fatality rate of 
seventeen one-hundredths of 1 percent. New York serology tests revealed 
a fatality rate of one-half of 1 percent.
  So, simply stated, if you get the flu, your chance of survival is 
99.9 percent; and according to these studies, if you get COVID-19, your 
chance of survival is better than 99.5 percent.
  So how does this science justify throwing nearly 40 million Americans 
into unemployment?
  Does the science support population-wide lockdowns?
  In 2006, based upon an Albuquerque teenager's science paper, the Bush 
administration proposed mass lockdowns in the event of a severe flu 
pandemic. Leading epidemiologists warned at the time that: ``The 
negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme that 
this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious 
consideration.'' It wasn't.
  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has now admitted that 84 percent of 
COVID-19 hospitalizations in New York are people who are either already 
quarantined at home or are at nursing homes.
  Statistical analysts, including Stanford University's Michael Levitt, 
Tel Aviv University's Isaac Ben-Israel, Kentucky State University's 
Wilfred Reilly, and Cypress Semiconductor's T. J. Rodgers, are finding 
no significant statistical difference in the infection curves between 
those jurisdictions that have destroyed their economies and those that 
haven't. In fact, a study by J.P. Morgan has found an inverse 
relationship as economies began to open back up.
  A study of 318 outbreaks involving 1,245 cases in China found just 
one outbreak that occurred outdoors, involving just two cases. Eighty 
percent of the outbreaks occurred in people's homes. So how does it 
follow the science to close outdoor venues and order people indoors?
  Mr. Speaker, it is high time we considered how many Americans will 
die because of the COVID-19 lockdowns. The Well Being Trust predicts up 
to 75,000 ``deaths of despair'' due to suicide and drug and alcohol 
abuse because of the lockdown.
  In March, the Epic Health Research Network warned of a 94 percent 
decline in breast, colon, and cervical cancer screenings. The Rape, 
Abuse & Incest National Network reports a 22 percent increase in 
children calling for help.
  A 2011 Columbia University study funded by the National Institutes of 
Health estimated that 4\1/2\ percent of all deaths in the United States 
are related to poverty. So how does it follow the science to destroy 
the livelihoods of millions of Americans, cut them off from their 
social networks, force them into isolation, and plunge them into 
poverty and despair?
  Now, I don't blame public health officials. They have the luxury of 
ignoring the effect of their policies beyond their area of expertise. 
The responsibility rests, rather, with public officials who failed to 
consider the catastrophic collateral damage that they have caused, who 
became so drunk with power and so besotted with self-righteousness that 
they lost any reference to common sense or any concern for the damage 
they have done.

                          ____________________