the United States, look we don't have time to sort this out but if you're rich I'm going to trust you to do the right thing. Now maybe make it easy. There could be a specific way you could donate it back. There might be a way you can write void on your check and register it on something. Might be some way that you can be sure that you gave it to somebody who didn't already get money from somebody else. So maybe there's a way to register who you donated it to so they don't get it multiple times and when somebody else gives nothing.

So I've seen a lot of no's but if you can, and by the way I'm not selling this as a great idea. I'm just putting it out there because the more ideas we have maybe that helps somebody fix a different idea. Somebody says some would and some wouldn't. Now that's the assumption that I would like to test. Imagine that some would just keep it. What percentage? And does it matter? Maybe not. Maybe it doesn't matter.

But I think this is a different national mood. I think that every person who can help is helping. This is very different. So that gets down to why this is different than any other time. If this were normal times, of course you don't send money to rich people. Of course. But could you trust them? Could you trust the citizens, the rich ones, the rich enough ones, the ones that are not even rich but rich enough? Could you trust them? I think yes.

Now I would certainly, I'm not going to fight hard with you if you say no and that doesn't work. It'll make things worse and people will complain because the rich people kept their money and all that. But I don't think so. I think the way I'm reading the room is that that money would fly out of the rich people's hands as fast as they could get rid of it. I believe that they would be racing to get rid of it because you know what? You don't want to be in the middle of a pandemic. You know what you don't want to be? The rich who kept money that should go to the poor. Nobody wants to be that guy, that woman, that guy. Nobody wants to be that person.

And I think that money would just fly into the hands of the people who need it. If the rich gave it to a local restaurant, they'd give it to a local business. I think it wouldn't last ten minutes before the rich gave it away. That's what I think. Now I just put it out there. It would require the highest level of trust. Can you trust your fellow citizens, especially the ones who have more money? Can you trust them in this emergency? I think you can. I think you can't. And maybe it would be a good thing for the national psyche just to prove it.

Now I'm not the smartest guy in the room on this issue. That's for sure. Not even close. So I'll just put it out there as an idea.

All right, you know here's some stuff I'd like to know an answer to. So we're coming to understand that this is an information problem that got turned into a health care problem. If we had perfect information we would have no problem already and be solved because I would know who has the virus and I'd say oh Bob has the virus, I'll stay away from Bob. Then two weeks later everybody's good. So if you had perfect information you'd be fine. And as we're gaining information about what tools and what tests and who has and who doesn't, what works, what doesn't, that's how we'll get over the top. So definitely an information kind of problem.

But here's some questions with the information. So some things I want to know to improve my feeling of comfort. I would like to know the following thing. What do we know about the number of people who were treated with chloroquine and then lived versus died? So in other words we have death rates of just people summed up in average but I want to see the death rate specifically of people who got the chloroquine, let's say before they were ventilated. So you'd probably want to look at only pre-ventilated people because then you could imagine that was too late. So if you subtract down to people that you don't know if it's too late or not but it would ruin your numbers either way. You take the obviated demo. So no ventilated people, just people who were maybe heading that direction. How many of them who got the full chloroquine treatment actually died? And then of the ones who died, how many of them had an underlying condition that explained it?

And because here's what I'm going to predict. And I'm going to talk for a moment about Dr. Fauci who is way less optimistic about chloroquine than people who have read up on it are. And I'll explain that in a minute. But I want to know if this works to allow people not to die unless an underlying condition. That would be very good to know.

Now the president said it could be a game-changer. Maybe, maybe not. So we left some doubt there but he used the phrase game-changer and that made the public think that we've really got something good and things are going to go well. When Dr. Fauci, who we all recognize as the one we want to listen to, if there's a tiebreaker on facts who are you going to listen to? If our president who likes to put a good spin on things says this and Dr. Fauci who does not try to put a good spin on things, just trying to give it to you straight, he says something a little different, who are you going to believe?

Well under normal circumstances I'd say well maybe you want to lean toward Dr. Fauci. But this might be an exception. And let me say why. So Fauci was asked about it and he said there's no magic drug, meaning that is, and then he goes on to explain there's no magic drug that's both effective and safe or has been tested to be effective and safe that has been tested. The part that's critical, my cat won't shut up. Can you hold just a second? I can let her out. Thanks. You can tell this is a high quality production because all your high quality productions they stop what they're doing to let the cat out.

All right, I was talking about Fauci somewhat disagreeing with the president's characterization of this chloroquine. So is it a game-changer maybe as the president says or is it no magic drug that is tested to be safe and efficacious? Why would they be sort of a little bit different? Well are they? Did the president say that the drug had been tested and was safe and efficacious? He did not. So when Fauci says that there's no magic drug that has tested that safe and effective, that's compatible with what the president says. The president is just saying it could be good. Fauci is just saying it could be good. They're just using different words. Basically there's no difference.

Now Fauci is holding back on the optimism but I believe he also gave us the why. Because we've already experienced a hoarding of toilet paper, right? So in a world where we know that hoarding would happen, what if Fauci said this is the magic pill? If you have this pill you can live. If you don't have this pill you might die. What would happen? What would happen, right?

So I think Fauci is playing a careful game here which is I believe the government might have a lot more belief in its efficacy and safety than our top expert is letting on. Number one, it just always makes sense not to let people get complacent. It's still an emergency situation. And there would be several benefits of downplaying it. The number one benefit is that it would reduce the number of people who hoard it. It would reduce the number of people who are willing to maybe get violent to get it. Because the last thing you want to hear is that your neighbor has some of this drug and you don't but you have a gun. See where I'm going with this?

How would you like a country where there's a magic pill? Some people have it because they got a connection. Whatever. So some people are going to have it and some people got it from their secret Mexico source or whatever and they've got the pill but the neighbor's got a gun. You want to live in that country? Yeah. If your government says yeah this is a magic pill, if you have it you can live, if you don't have the pill you might die. Neighbor has it. The other neighbor doesn't have it but he's got a gun. You don't want to live in that world.

So when you look at the brain power in some