New CDC Figures Show Fauci’s Dishonest COVID-19 Projections Were Garbage

RedState ^ | May 23, 2020 | Michael Thau

[Michal T]

The CDC is now saying COVID-19's fatality rate is a fraction of the number Fauci used to panic us into lockdown. Moreover, we now know for sure that he never believed any of the garbage he peddled to us.

[tbw2]

Neil Ferguson has a history of predicting 100x-1000x more dead from diseases than actually happened. His Imperial disease model predicted 2% of the entire population dying. It isn’t even 0.2%. But he was WILDLY off in the past.

Exhibit 1: Bird flu pandemic ‘could kill 150m’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/30/birdflu.jamessturcke

Exhibit 2: up to 50,000 dead from mad cow disease
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/jan/09/research.highereducation

[tbw2]

Neil Ferguson has a history of predicting 100x-1000x more dead from diseases than actually happened. His Imperial disease model predicted 2% of the entire population dying. It isn’t even 0.2%. But he was WILDLY off in the past.

Exhibit 1: Bird flu pandemic ‘could kill 150m’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/30/birdflu.jamessturcke

Exhibit 2: up to 50,000 dead from mad cow disease
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/jan/09/research.highereducation

[Drago]

Not the best written article....nowhere in it do they quote any Fauci CFR or IRF predictions, and the article itself is predicting COVID-19 to be 2x to 4x as deadly as regular flu.

[DannyTN]

Okay, but if I read that right, that affects total tests but not new cases.

New cases is what I’m primarily focused on. That is what will drive when I and a lot of other people start venturing out more.

[AndyJackson]

As for your analysis, why don’t we have 59 times as many deaths from the Covid virus as we usually do from the flu? Just asking as a stupid paperhanger who didn’t major in science.

uh, because the case rate stopped increasing 10-fold per week when we started social distancing? Just sayin'

[Bshaw]

You have been not trusting Fauci for a very long time FRiend! Nice list, THANK YOU!

[DannyTN]

The current Case Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is 98,658 deaths / 1,666,015 known cases = 5.9%..

I don't know what Redstate is using. Someone on this thread said Redstate was using a planning document and not actual stats.

So assuming that the 65% are symptomatic is right, and I don't have a high confidence in that number, then
5.9% CFR * .65% = 3.8% IFR.

Let me just check that math.
1,066,015 known cases assumed to all be symptomatic.
1,666,015 /.65 = 2,563,100 cases in total.
2,564,100 * .65 = 1,066,015 yet that works.
Now 98,658 deaths / 2,564,100 infections = 3.8%.
Yep that worked.

I think there are less symptomatic cases that .65% which would lower the IFR. But how much I don't know. Any way you look at it, the CFR of 5.9% IS 59 times the flu CFR of 0.1%. And COVID IFR is going to be much higher than the flu IFR too.

Note also that 5.9% is far greater than Fauci's March prediction of 1.0 (10 times greater than flu). Fauci was super super optimistic in February. In March he was just super optimistic.

Sweden's CFR is now 12%. I doubt Sweden tests anyone but the sickest. Sweden now has 3,288 deaths per million population. USA has 298 deaths per million population.

[exDemMom]

Though just an estimate, I think it's important that the CDC is admitting that many cases don't show symptoms. It estimates 35% don't (and the percentage may be even higher). Also it gives a fatality rate for symptomatic cases of 0.4%, much lower than the 3.4% predicted earlier by the WHO (and the fatality rate itself shouldn't be affected significantly by the data being from April unless the quality of the care has changed, and if so, it probably became better).

The CDC document that the blogosphere has jumped on today is NOT a description of the pandemic situation or characteristics of the virus. It is a planning document that puts forth several potential scenarios to wargame various courses of action.

The fatality rate is, as of this morning, 6.468%. That is calculated directly from case and death data.

So with many cases being asymptomatic, the true fatality rate should be lower than 0.4%.

I realize that the narrative that there are vast numbers of asymptomatic cases is popular for some obscure reason, but it is not based on any evidence. Nor is a situation in which people are walking around asymptomatically spreading a disease that can kill you. I do not know why that narrative is so popular.

The real fatality rate, based on real case and death data, is currently around 6.5%

[nutmeg]

.

[exDemMom]

I know.

I saw a video on youtube made by a woman who just lost her father a few days ago. He was in a NY nursing home. They put Covid-19 patients in the same ward, he caught it, and 2 days later died. His symptoms were fairly mild, loss of appetite and some lethargy was all.

So tragic.

[DannyTN]

If the USA had gone Sweden’s route and we had incurred 3,288 deaths per million instead of 298 deaths per million. We would be looking at 11 times as many deaths. Instead of 100,000 we would have had 1.1 million deaths.

Trump still claims that he saved 1.5 million lives with the shut down. That was my estimate too. Right there is evidence of Trump claim.

The outstanding question is can we maintain that low population death rate. Can we get the virus under control, or are we eventually going to end up in the same place as Sweden having taken longer to get there.

I hope and pray we find a way to get this under control and we don’t have to go the herd immunity route. Because Sweden is only 9 or 10% of the way to herd immunity. Sweden is at 7.3% with antibodies. They need to get to 70-80% for herd immunity.

That means Sweden has to incur 10 times more deaths than they already have to reach herd immunity. And the USA has to incur 100 times more deaths to reach herd immunity. That’s 11 million Americans.

Someone please find an error in my math.

Bottom line, I think herd immunity should be a last resort and we need to get serious about preventing transmission spread, long enough to get preventive medicine into the hands of all. Or until a vaccine is available.

I don’t think we can do closures that long. The economic pain will be too great. Everything not essential would fail. And I don’t think that government could extend a life line like direct payments or a universal income, without causing hyperinflation.

I’m not positive that they can’t. But it’s never been done that I know of.

[DannyTN]

My Sweden calcs were wrong.

Found it there was error in my math.

Sweden's Death rate per 1 million population is 396 not 3288. I picked up the wrong number.

So that is 1/3 greater than the USA rate of 298. So instead of 100,000 we would be at 133,333 deaths if we had gone Sweden's route.

And therefore to get to herd immunity the USA would eventually have 1,333,333 deaths if treatment is no more effective than it was for the first 100,000.

[DannyTN]

My sweden calcs were wrong.
See previous post.

[Ann Archy]

BINGO!! DR. Fauci IS Dr. Frankenstein since this virus is his BABY !!
He MUST be EXPOSED for his EVILNESS!!

[GJones2]

Thanks for going to the trouble of doing some calculations, but you're really doing something more difficult, and not what I had in mind. I was merely asking about the math applied to the specific planning numbers at the -- CDC page I cited -- that gave a fatality rate of 0.26%.

Yes, these are just planning scenarios, but I'm referring to "Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate". It represents the CDC'S current best estimate of the numbers to be expected, based on confirmed symptomatic cases and fatalities, along with an estimate based on other studies that 35% of cases don't show symptoms. Merely using reported cases will necessarily give a deceptively higher fatality rate than one that also approximates how many mild or asymptomatic cases are not being reported (based on studies of the population as a whole).

At the moment I'm not questioning the data or estimates, just the one calculation applied elsewhere that gave that 0.26% total fatality rate for all persons infected (not just confirmed, but the total of confirmed and estimated). I'm asking for others to agree or disagree with the mathematical computation based on those numbers that I explained in post 35.

If it's too much trouble, don't bother to check, but I figured some other persons -- hopefully some with more recent practice doing math than I have -- would be curious about discovering whether the math that gave a number for total fatality rate now being widely quoted on the internet was calculated correctly. It's merely a matter of math, and requires no data outside the CDC page I cited. In fact, checking the math itself requires no information outside post 35.

[billyboy15]

Lol, you’ve been a fear monger since day one and now that the cat’s out of the bag and we know the numbers have been rigged you simply can’t face it.

You are behaving like a Democrmat who still believes in Russian collusion.

[GJones2]

Please see my previous post about the calculation.

>> "I realize that the narrative that there are vast numbers of asymptomatic cases is popular for some obscure reason [because it would mean the threat if you get the virus is much less than the numbers for persons who show symptoms indicate], but it is not based on any evidence."<<

Whether right or wrong, it's based on several samples of the population at large, and the CDC itself is now estimating 35% asymptomatic.

According to one study by Stanford University of the county of Santa Clara (not yet peer reviewed):

"These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases."

50-85-fold!

Then a study by University of Southern California and County of Los Angeles Public Health found this:

"Based on results of the first round of testing, the research team estimates that approximately 4.1% of the county’s adult population has antibody to the virus...That estimate is 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the county by the time of the study in early April."

That one's lower -- still 28 to 55 times higher than the number of confirmed cases. If large numbers of cases are going unreported, then fatality rates based on calculations of confirmed cases are going to be far higher than the true fatality rate for all persons who contract the virus.

[GJones2]

>>”Sweden’s Death rate per 1 million population is 396 not 3288. I picked up the wrong number. So that is 1/3 greater than the USA rate of 298.<<

Thanks for pointing out the error, and your numbers per million are still important. (The reason I want my math checked is that I may have made an error too. Persons who pretend they don’t make errors actually lose credibility that way, because we know all human beings are fallible.) I think deaths per million for the virus is a much better measure than deaths per reported cases. To understand their full significance, though, I think we’ll have to wait a while to see how these numbers turn out in the long run.

Also any attempts to reach herd immunity — not really complete herd immunity, of course, just enough to reduce spread of the virus to a tolerably low level — would need to be done with low-risk persons, not with the elderly or persons in nursing homes. In my opinion the sick and elderly need to continue to be cautious. I’m retired and elderly, and that’s what I’ll be doing for a while yet.

[DugwayDuke]

JennysCool wrote: “EXACTLY same story. I’ve posted about this here before. There was obviously a consensus amongst the (Liberal) medical community that if the public thought AIDS was “a gay disease” the funding for research wouldn’t be there.”

Precisely the narrative told to my friend by those researchers at CDC.

[Wuli]

Now then, for the arguments with your friends.

Yes, compared to that CDC estimate (now) of a 0.4% death rate for the Wuhan Virus, the “reported” death rate for the seasonal flu is 0.1%.

However, the seasonal flu death rate is an estimate based on an estimate of how many people “might” actually have been infected persons (cases), but the Wuhan Virus numbers are based on the actual reported case counts for those who have been tested - ONLY.

Yet, many scientists in the area of infectious diseases, using antibody test rates and other data suggest the actual “positive” case rate is very much higher than the “reported” cases, with tons of people who have had the Wuhan Virus and gotten over it thinking it was the flu, and others who were exposed and were never more than asymptomatic.

For those reasons, the “true” death rate figure for the Wuhan Virus may be much lower than CDC’s current estimate of .4%, and might be as low as the seasonal flu rate of .1%.