The models were complete bullshit and instilled panic in the public and politicians- who believed even with full social distancing hospitals nationwide would not be able to handle a flood of patients. As Brix said just a few days, we were hopefully looking at only 200,000 dead with a nationwide lockdown. Turns out her prediction was more horseshit based on the Bill Gates funded IHME model. Why does it matter that Fauci and the model he was reliant on was wrong? Because by the end of the month we could be looking at 30 million unemployed Americans and countless small businesses destroyed- through no fault of their own and it didn't have to happen. There were researchers at places like Stanford and around the world, particularly in Germany, saying a lockdown was counterproductive and might in fact lead to more cases, not less (not to mention devastate the economy and in turn countless lives). Why? Because the virus is not as easily transmitted as the media led people to believe- a leading virologist doing research in "Germany's Wuhan" said they don't have a single confirmed case of someone getting it in a store. But locking people in their homes, resulting in close contact in a confined space, is an ideal situation for it to be transmitted. Look at Japan and Sweden, which had a much more laissez faire approach to the virus, and didn't lockdown the society- their numbers look much better than countries that engaged in strict lockdowns. No one is saying the virus is mot serious. With or without a lockdown a lot of people, especially particularly vulnerable people have died and will continue to die. But think about what Fauci has done to the economy in trying to combat this and who he relied on. I suspect he didn't provide President Trump with a full picture of what the experts were saying- he was too dependent on the Imperial College and later the IHME models.