The scale of the measures the world is taking to combat coronavirus are unprecedented in human history. And we are basing these measures on the advice of a handful of experts. These measures will no doubt save lives that would have been cut short by this virus. But they are also coming at incalculable cost—to our economies, our livelihoods, our civil liberties and freedoms, our social cohesion, even mental and physical health.
Granted, this particular coronavirus seems especially contagious, and it poses significant risk for people with chronic health problems. Initial expert projections about death rates were shockingly high, some of them in the scores of millions.
However, the experts have also been making some fairly spectacular errors in their calculations, and these are being underreported and virtually overlooked in the response of our governments.
On March 3, World Health Organization Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus made this shocking announcement: “Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported covid-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected.” It turned out that Tedros was frightening the world with dishonest math. He based the death rate for influenza on the estimated number of people infected with the common flu each year. He based the alarming 3.4 percent figure on the number of known cases of coronavirus. The vast majority of those infected are never tested. This is a simple, well-known fact, yet Tedros and other experts issued even more-ominous death rate predictions, some as high as 4 and 5 percent.
For the United States and Britain, the most authoritative and influential team of experts came from Imperial College London. The New York Times wrote on March 17, “With ties to the World Health Organizationand a team of 50 scientists, led by a prominent epidemiologist, Neil Ferguson, Imperial is treated as a sort of gold standard, its mathematical models feeding directly into government policies“ (emphasis added throughout).
What did the “gold standard” of scientific research uncover about covid-19 and its threat to society? The Imperial model stated that, unchecked, the virus would kill 510,000 people in Britain and 2.2 million in America. The Washington Post asked, if First World nations would suffer this badly, what would happen in the rest of the world?
Ferguson’s March 16 report began by saying the public health threat of covid-19 “is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.” It said that if the governments of Britain and the United States drastically restricted the freedoms of their citizens, they could reduce the death count to 260,000 in the UK and 1.1 million in the U.S.
“Finally, if the British government quickly went all-out to suppress viral spread—aiming to reverse epidemic growth and reduce the case load to a low level—then the number of dead in the country could drop to below 20,000,” the Post stated. “To do this, the researchers said, Britain would have to enforce social distancing for the entire population, isolate all cases, demand quarantines of entire households where anyone is sick, and close all schools and universities.”
The advocacy of the media and health experts was, Do what China did:Lock your people down. Their justification? Ferguson and Imperial College’s “gold standard” model, which has “ties to the World Health Organization,” and Director Tedros, who is simultaneously calling China a “new standard” in confronting outbreaks.
Ferguson told the New York Times outright: “Based on our estimates and other teams’, there’s really no option but follow in China’s footsteps and suppress.” Follow Communist China’s lead, or millions and millions of people will drop dead.
And how long would Western governments need to impose Communist-style lockdowns? The “gold standard” model recommended up to 18months. Shutdowns, social distancing the entire population, and quarantining the infirmed and their families—for a year and a half! Even then, the UK death count projection would be 20,000 people. According to the bbc, this scenario represented a “good outcome” for Britain.
covid-19 task forces in London and Washington accepted the catastrophic Imperial forecast without objection. As the New York Times opined, “It wasn’t so much the numbers themselves, frightening though they were, as who reported them: Imperial College London.”
The “gold standard” had spoken: Lock them down.
Before Imperial spoke, governments in Britain and America both favored promoting commonsense guidelines: wash hands frequently, sneeze or cough into your folded arm, stay at home if you are sick, etc. Both British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and United States President Donald Trump were disinclined to enforce stricter guidelines. Then, over the weekend of March 14-15, the Trump and Johnson administrations were briefed on the Imperial College forecast. The sudden, profound impact this model had on both countries and the world was disastrous.
On March 25, just nine days after releasing his frightening report, Neil Ferguson told British members of Parliament that the UK death toll could end up being “substantially lower” than 20,000. Furthermore, he testified that the overall impact on the deaths in the UK this year might be negligible because most of the covid-19 victims would have died of other health complications anyway.
Had Ferguson said any of this just a few days earlier, it might have prevented the U.S. and Britain from plunging headlong into the governmental and financial abyss.
Even with his newly revised forecast, Ferguson believes the UK government was right to lock it down. He said it probably saved the National Health Service from disaster, but did acknowledge that because of the economic impact, we will be paying for this “for many decades to come.”
At some point, covid-19 will go away. But the “cure” will remain.
The day after Ferguson quietly backtracked from his Imperial model, another study in America received a lot of attention. It was headlined “U.S. Virus Deaths May Top 80,000 Despite Confinement.” With most of America now glued to the daily death tracker, this study was used to incite more fear and hysteria. The truth behind the headline, however, is that it represented another rapid retreat from the original projections of Spanish flu-like devastation. Eighty thousand deaths from coronavirus is not a repeat of the 1918 pandemic. It’s more comparable to the ferocious flu season of 2017–18, when 45 million Americans were infected, 810,000 were hospitalized and 61,000 died (0.14 death rate). That happened two years ago. And no one cared.
As the experts who initially proclaimed their high death tolls now quietly lowered them, President Trump said America needed to get back to work soon. But Fauci rushed to the media, telling them America might lose 100,000 to 200,000 people even under a strict lockdown. The president then extended social-distancing guidelines through the end of April. The experts, you see, are right—even when they get it spectacularly wrong.
There are so many things to take in and to learn from this coronavirus phenomenon. But here is an important thing to stop and dwell on: “[C]ursed be the man that trusteth in man” (Jeremiah 17:5).
Ordinary people, leaders and even experts around the world are going crazy trying to find someone in whom to invest their trust. They are trusting in man.
Cristina Laila
The IMHE (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) model for the Coronavirus the White House is relying on is complete garbage.
For example, the IMHE model predicted 1,716 people in Texas would be hospitalized yesterday from the Coronavirus, but the actual number of Texans hospitalized is 196.
In Georgia, the IMHE model predicted that as of yesterday, 2,777 people would have been hospitalized due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number of people hospitalized in Georgia? 952.
In Virginia, the IMHE model predicted that 607 Virginians would have been hospitalized as of yesterday due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number? 305.
In Tennessee, the IMHE model predicted that 2,214 people in Tennessee would have been hospitalized by yesterday due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number? 200.
In New York, the IMHE model predicted that as of yesterday, 50,962 people would have been hospitalized due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number? 18,368.
The IMHE (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) model for the Coronavirus the White House is relying on is complete garbage.
The US economy has been virtually shut down, unemployment spiked and small businesses are on the verge of shuttering based on faulty projections.
The IMHE model is using New York and New Jersey data and applying it to the rest of the US.
It predicted that over 121,000 Americans would be hospitalized yesterday (Wednesday) over the
The actual number? 31,142.For example, the IMHE model predicted 1,716 people in Texas would be hospitalized yesterday from the Coronavirus, but the actual number of Texans hospitalized is 196.
In Georgia, the IMHE model predicted that as of yesterday, 2,777 people would have been hospitalized due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number of people hospitalized in Georgia? 952.
In Virginia, the IMHE model predicted that 607 Virginians would have been hospitalized as of yesterday due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number? 305.
In Tennessee, the IMHE model predicted that 2,214 people in Tennessee would have been hospitalized by yesterday due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number? 200.
In New York, the IMHE model predicted that as of yesterday, 50,962 people would have been hospitalized due to the Coronavirus.
The actual number? 18,368.
Top White House officials scaled back their predictions and said between 100,000 and 200,000 Americans are projected to die from the Coronavirus.
This is down from the 1.7 million American deaths predicted by a key UK scientist which sent the entire country into panic mode.
Millions and millions of Americans are going to lose their jobs, their homes and their savings.
These so-called “experts” owe the American public an explanation and not just ever-changing models to terrify the masses.
No comments:
Post a Comment