PJ Media report presents the case of University of Waterloo doctoral candidate in epidemiology, Ronald B. Brown, who concluded that there was a “math error” injected into the early COVID-19 death models that caused them to overestimate projected mortality totals.
This fact could impact the political justification of all COVID-19 policy because the data’s legitimacy is inversely proportional to the size of the “math error”. Put another way, information’s decision-making value falls as its level of error grows, and vice versa. Bad data equals bad decisions.
Mr. Brown determined that the mortality rate calculations were in error by a factor of 10, or 1000%, due to the conflation of case fatality rate (CFR) with an infection fatality rate (IFR) estimated to be ten times as large. A severe error, but not without issues. First, is the error large enough to delegitimize COVID-19 lockdown decisions, and, more importantly, how accurate is the estimated “math error”?
Considering the incalculable financial, psychological, and spiritual damage already done to millions, plus new, possibly mistaken, concerns over a rise in COVID-19 cases, citizens deserve to know if the data leaders use is accurate and reliable enough to justify further political action.
As terrible as Brown’s conflation error is, it remains an estimate because the CFR and IFR numbers were themselves, estimates. Obviously, early models were data-challenged and had no choice but to produce ridiculous projections. Remember, these erroneous results were crucial factors in the political decision-making process and as COVID-19 policy was brutal, it’s fair to ask for proper justification.
Thankfully, we can calculate a more realistic COVID-19 delusion factor by comparing the actual number of COVID-19 deaths with the model projections used to drive policy choices.
The key to getting an accurate understanding of whether political action was justified or not requires accurate COVID-19 death counts and knowing the projected death numbers political leaders relied on.
For example, this early April CBC article reported Ontario provincial health experts expected COVID-19 to kill between 3,000 and 15,000 Ontarians. (Oddly, these estimates are strangely referred to as “revelations”.) It’s possible these numbers influenced Ontario Premier Doug Ford, so, how accurate would they have been?
As of September 15, 2020, worldometers showed Canada’s COVID-19 death total at 9,179. Extrapolating based on population; Ontario’s 15,000 figure is equivalent to 38,744 Canadian deaths.
This represents a COVID-19 delusion factor (projection/actual) of 4.22, or, a substantial 422%.
In that same article, however, they justify drastic political action on the idea that it prevented Ontario’s COVID-19 death toll from hitting 100,000. This would equate to 258,294 Canadians, which explodes the political delusion factor to 28, or 2800%.
The argument that totalitarian action lowered the number of deaths is, thanks to RealClimateScience, [ ] proven false by looking at Sweden’s non-lockdown experience.
Some Saskatchewan projections were even worse. This CBC article suggested up to 15,000 could die in the sparsely populated province, which equates to a Canadian total of 479,036 COVID-19 deaths.
The delusion factor here is a nerve wracking 52, or 5228%. Scary enough, but this article also suggested Saskatchewan was still unprepared to combat the virus and that the health system would be overwhelmed even using “conservative” assumptions. Did that happen?
The Saskatchewan government noted that “more accurate modelling is anticipated in the coming days” and that “Even if there was a 50 percent error rate, we still need to do this.” So, an admittance they’re simply guessing and, chillingly, the belief it’s acceptable to make life-altering decisions on data that is wrong half the time. This is panic, not logic, speaking.
“Number of Cases” is another “conflation” deceit
The current concern, expressed by the media and certain political leaders, is the rising “number of cases”. However, missing from that conversation is the fact that COVID-19 has lost its Death Punch, meaning there is no direct correlation between COVID-19 cases and deaths, as if viruses have a
“life cycle” of their own.
Ask yourself how dangerous COVID-19 still is after reviewing this chart showing new deaths per day in Canada.
Ask yourself how many Canadians would be convinced of the need to mask up or lock down if they understood that number of cases does not equate to number of deaths. Now, ask yourself why the media and premiers would insist on conflating the two.
We can conclude the following.
- Poor models led to delusional political choices and disastrous consequences.
- The focus on “cases” rather than deaths is a deliberate decision shared by the media and most politicians.
- Conflation is a deceitful tactic whose use is to JUSTIFY, not prove the need for, government action both past and present.
- The horrific consequences of COVID-19 political policy are both known, and by pushing deceit, desired by the media and political leaders. Sad, but true.
We know they messed up and they know they messed up, HUGE! They just don’t want you to know they know, which allows them to avoid accountability and continue down their illegitimate course.
Quebec Premier Francois Legault mocked mask deniers by equating them to conspiracy theorists who believe Elvis still roams Graceland. Considering how delusional Saskatchewan and Ontario projections were, and how misleading it is to focus on “cases”, the probability that COVID-19 justifications were predicated on accurate projections is ZERO.
Prediction
The unmasking of provincial COVID-19 delusions will show a direct relationship between the scale of the delusion and the severity of political restrictions that followed.
My conclusion is simple. The evidence shows the coronavirus is not what we feared it might be. It is not the Medical Armageddon we closed down our economy to avoid. As a result we just hot our Economy in the foot. Lockdowns probably achieved very little – aside from wrecking whole swathes of industry, business and commerce.
It is not a repeat of the 1918 Spanish Flu or the Black Death. The story of the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic started with the assumption it was going to be a global disaster killing millions, but it’s turned out to be something very different and less threatening.
We should be thankful for that. The Big One is surely still coming. What we’ve experienced over the last months allows us to figure out what worked and what didn’t for next time. Hopefully we can face the tragedy and challenges of the next real pandemic without creating economic misery as well. At some point mankind will accidently unleash a new SARs or other virus that could kill millions. COVID-19 wasn’t the killer we thought it might be.
The facts, science and data around Covid have been evolving ever since March, but the narrative surrounding it has barely changed. It still dominates the news flow as if it was killing millions rather than a few. It is influencing policy, markets, economies and everyone's daily lifes to a more massive extent than is justified.
For all the flaff of lockdowns, working from home, the dangers of kids going back to university and everything else the corona-Nazis fulminate about – there is actually far far less risk around Covid than the “received” narrative continues to scare us with.
The lower threat-level, the real numbers and the real risks can be explained by science. It’s the real data and real science that should have driven the reaction – but, that’s not the way our emotions handle threat. It’s not how politics handles reality. The media isn’t excited by a “this isn’t as bad as we thought it was” story. Politicians don’t generally accept they might have been wrong – even though experience teaches us Boris invariably is…
As the virus struck, like most people I accepted the need for Lockdown – but the data and evidence I read and weighed yesterday shocked and surprised me. I don’t like surprises when it comes to markets and the economy. Niether should investors.
Reality is that Lockdown achieved little. The Swedes were right and we were wrong. We have shattered out economy for little gain. Some careful social distancing and pragmatic shielding would have achieved similar or better results.
To understand why we’ve all be dragged along by Lockdown we need to understand government and policy. It’s looking clear the whole pandemic response has been a chronic over-reaction – but governments didn’t do it deliberately. For a start, they acted in unison – meaning when some other country locked-down, they looked over their shoulders and did the same. Why? To avoid the charge of complacency if they didn’t. The Swedes took enormous international criticism when they didn’t – but stuck with their own plan. Well done them!
No comments:
Post a Comment