The Corona virus response will go down as one of the world’s most shamefully overblown, overhyped, overly & irrationally inflated & outright deceptively flawed responses to a health matter in world history |
These are the facts: COVID-19 is a real disease that sickens some, proves fatal to others, mostly those with comorbidities, — and does nothing to the vast majority.
Thats it.
That, in a nutshell, is it.
Or, in the words of Dan Erickson and Artin Massih, doctors and co-owners of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, California: Let’s get the country reopened — and now.
“Do we need to still shelter in place? Our answer is emphatically no. Do we need businesses to be shut down? Emphatically no. … [T]he data is showing it’s time to lift,” Erickson said, in a recent interview.
He’s right. They’re right.
The data to keep America closed and Americans closed in simply doesn’t exist.
If truth be told, it’s questionable it ever did.
The scientists leading the coronavirus shutdown charge predicted in March that in America, between 100,000 and 250,000 would die. They based those estimates on computer modeling.
But at the same time they were basing those estimates on computer modeling, they were acknowledging that computer modeling is inaccurate and errs on the side of hype.
“I’ve never seen a model of the diseases I’ve dealt with where the worst-case actually came out,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of President Donald Trump’s White House coronavirus task force, during a CNN interview in March. “They always overshoot.”
Catch that? Fauci’s message: Computer models are flawed and inaccurate and always overestimate the problem.
But from these faulty overinflated computer figures came all the constitutionally questionable actions by government anyway — from ordering businesses closed to quarantining-slash-house arresting American citizens to doing some quick and pitiful and economically painful income redistribution schemes via stimulus funds’ legislation.
Since, about 56,000 have died in America due to coronavirus — or have they? Again, the facts are flimsy.
"Since, about 56,000 have died in America due to coronavirus — or have they? Again, the facts are flimsy."
ReplyDeleteYes, the facts sure are flimsy. The number you quote is from that damned Worldometer site, isn't it? (Or perhaps someone who uses that site, as apparently the New York Times does.)
I've been using the CDC's data,
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
Their number is around 25,000, about half what others are reporting. Why people don't quote the CDC unless they want an inflated number is beyond me.
The most amazing thing about the CDC data is that it shows a peak in deaths on the week ending 4/11 (10K appx) followed by a dramatic drop by around half for the week after (5K appx), followed by another unbelievable drop for 4/25-- to 461. This amply supports your above conclusions. Does the media report this, though? Not usually. It stinks to high heaven, and because it does, for the perps there should be hell to pay.
Thanks very much for the link to the CDC mortality stats.
DeleteI think you may be comparing CDC stats for April only, with the Worldometer number for the epidemic so far. Is that not correct?
Yes, it looks like the total number of deaths for all months is 34,521. It also looks as if the CDC is correcting their provisional numbers upward each time I look. The count for the week ending 4/25 now reads 2,167, which is more than five times larger than when I first saw it, a few days after 4/25. Somehow that adds credibility to the CDC, especially because they have qualified their results at all times as provisional. Even rounded upwards, these numbers may indicate we're past the worst and the death count is likely to be much lower than what I had assumed was the best reasonable estimate of eventual corona virus deaths, 65,000. That amazes me. I still hear the 2.2 million deaths bandied about, though, and that also amazes me.
ReplyDeleteThanks, by the way, for your blog.
Is that the Canadian side of the Wrangell Mountains in your mast head? I'm in Alaska.
"Is that the Canadian side of the Wrangell Mountains in your mast head?"
DeleteYes, Mt. Logan, Canada's highest, just a few miles from the US border. Whether it's technically part of the Wrangell Mountain range, I'm not sure. From the Google map it looks to be part of a separate ridge to the South of the Wrangell Mountains and running parallel to them on a SE to NW line.
Thanks for visiting. I write here mainly to see what I think, but it's good to know that some people take a look and find it not crazy!