World Net Daily ... A bipartisan panel appointed by President Donald Trump to assess restoring economic normalcy issued a 17-page report on how to mount an "expeditious" return to work. While it also flags an important political issue critical to recovery, medical experts still object to a restart, absent meeting certain benchmarks. 

However, those benchmarks demand we return to the issue of why shutting down the economy became necessary in the first place.

 

Factors to which medical experts give weight in re-opening the economy include a rapid COVID-19 testing capability to identify, isolate and get those infected out of circulation, a drop in infection rates and finding a safe vaccine. This sounds logical, but what if we have based our actions to date on incorrect data and, therefore, faulty underlying assumptions?

 

There are two that immediately demand review.

 

The first assumption is the veracity of the projection model Dr. Anthony Fauci relied upon to estimate COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. While several models were designed, Fauci opted to rely upon one created by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) – a model estimating 2.2. million deaths. 

Perhaps because the model was partially funded by billionaire Bill Gates, it became Fauci's model of choice. Trump, presented with a highly projected death toll and at Fauci's urging, decided America had to be quarantined and the economy locked down.

 

Supposedly, basing decisions on data input provides us with clearer focus in our decision-making, filtering out emotions, such as panic, and media bias. But the IMHE projected death toll created the panic Trump sought to curtail. 

His error – for which he cannot be blamed – is Fauci's reliance upon a faulty model for which he, as Trump's medical science guru advising him on an extreme course of action, proved irresponsible.

 

As later determined, the IHME model's flaw incorrectly projected deaths in all states based upon data obtained for two very highly infected states – New York and New Jersey. This resulted in Fauci repeatedly having to reduce the projections. 

Our economy suffered because Trump did what he should have by listening to medical experts' advice to minimize a death toll that, ultimately, proved faulty.

 

The death numbers were also skewed due to the belief many people had the virus and never knew it. Meanwhile, an irresponsible media reported excessively "on the high death rate to the point that it is fictitious."

 

Fauci, effectively, is a wartime commander in the battle against COVID-19. In wartime, the commander in chief must know he can rely upon the advice of combat experts. Had a military commander in wartime given out the faulty intelligence Fauci did, he would have been relieved on the spot. Therefore, the calls we now see for Fauci's dismissal are justified.

 

Firing Fauci would put Trump's knee-jerk critics in an awkward situation. These critics rushed to attack Trump whenever it was perceived he was not listening to the all-knowing Fauci. Thus, they would have to hold their criticism, lest they be reminded of their error in supporting Fauci earlier.

 

This brings us to a second false assumption upon which our economy was placed on lockdown, although it only came to light after COVID-19 had declared its world war.

 

Basically, there are two approaches on how to defend against COVID-19. The first is the one Trump took, isolating the population and shutting down the economy. The second is the "herd immunity" approach. This leaves the economy functioning with no quarantine imposed but while taking precautions to protect society's most vulnerable. 

While people would obviously get infected, it promotes development of a herd immunity, minimizing fallout from an anticipated later return of the virus.

 

Of the two approaches, most countries chose quarantine, including Israel. But, recently, an Israeli researcher made an interesting discovery. Plotting infection rates for nine countries using both approaches, he found a fixed pattern emerged: It mattered not if a country chose quarantine, shutting down its economy, as infection rates were exactly the same. Analyzing both approaches, infections peaked in the sixth week and subsided in the eighth.

 

Thus, we must recognize our economy has been not been victimized by a killer virus but by decision-making built on false premises that were given Trump.

 

With April's economic numbers suggesting a recession is coming, with the next six weeks critical to whether we pull out of it, with Trump providing guidelines for a three-phase economic reopening, and with other countries preparing to restart their economies, we need to act fast lest we lose the opportunity to effectively bounce back. 

While state governors flex their Napoleonesque muscles with lockdowns infringing on constitutional rights, ultimately, continuing such lockdowns will endanger many more lives than those an unnecessary one may have saved.

 

The bipartisan report on restarting the economy addresses a critical political issue as well – i.e., demonstrating unity in fighting the war against COVID-19 to restore the public trust. That has been missing for Americans caught in a continuous cross-fire between Trump and his critics. The public recognizes, no matter what Trump does, whether COVID-19 related or not, Democratic field commander Nancy Pelosi will continue taking pot shots at him. 

These shots go to outrageous extremes, evidenced by claims such as Trump failed to act quickly enough on the quarantine while, at the same time, Pelosi encouraged crowds to attend Chinese New Year celebrations. And now, further dividing a never-really-united front is an antsy American public holding national protests to end the lockdown.

 

Fauci chose a faulty compass in advising Trump to "cross the Rubicon" and shut down the economy. The president erroneously believed he had to do so to save millions of lives. But based on what we now know, time is of the essence in reversing course to get our economy going again. 

In so doing, it is imperative Democrats holster their anti-Trump guns, adopting a Three Musketeers "all for one and one for all" approach, if we are to defeat a most formidable enemy – one threatening to derail our economy for generations to come.