Shocking — MedRX Study Finds Western Europe’s Draconian Lockdowns May Not Have Saved Any Lives Compared to Less Restrictive Measures

Gateway Pundit ^ | 05/02/2020 | Jim Hoft

[SeekAndFind]

p>There are several things we know today about the Wuhan coronavirus that we did not know two months ago:

** It is not as dangerous as first reported. The mortality rate is somewhere around 0.1% to 0.3% similar to a seasonal flu unlike the 3.4% number that the WHO was throwing around in early March.
** The Wuhan coronavirus is not a threat for children especially children under 10 who are not transmitters of the disease.
** Dr. Fauci was wrong almost every step of the way in understanding and controlling the disease.
** Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx and their poor judgment put over 30 million Americans out of work and killed thousands of businesses.
** The WHO pushed these draconian models used and promoted by Fauci and Birx.
** Herd immunity is reached safely when a majority of Americans who are young and healthy contract and recover from the disease.
** Hydroxychloroquine has shown amazing results treating the disease despite fake news media reports.
** The Swedish model of less restrictive measures is the preferred model. We didn’t need to destroy the economy.

NIAID Director Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx rushed in to the Oval Office in early March to warn President Trump of the killer pandemic that had reached our shores.
Fauci and Birx told President Trump the US could see up to 2 million deaths from the coronavirus.

The two medical experts then explained the US would have to shut down the economy in order to survive the pandemic to prevent the hundreds of thousands of deaths they expected.

So President Trump took their advice and shut down the greatest economy in US history.

But now it appears, after 30 million Americans have lost their jobs, that Fauci and Birx were wrong.

A new study posted at MedRX finds that Western Europe’s draconian lockdowns may not have saved any lives compared to less restrictive measures.

Via Dr. Andrew Bostom.

Knockdown of the Euro Lockdowns: “Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, & show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe" https://t.co/KPbZo5gLvI pic.twitter.com/va3l6ykh1C

— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) May 1, 2020

It looks like it’s time to change course in America.

[facedown]

Duh.

[rktman]

No doubt the evil propaganda machines are busy coming up with the best way to cast a bad light on PDJT and his “panicking” about a “flu bug” and causing the biggest economic crisis in the history of the world. You know they are.

[Big Red Badger]

Two Months of Lockdown.
.
Now it’s
6 Months for Recovery.

[AndyJackson]

Whatever the thesis, this paper is a fraud written by a Physical Oceanographer at Woods Hole and not peer reviewed.

It isn't a data driven paper. Instead he foists a mathematical model on you - equation 1 - which has built into it the conclusion he is trying to draw.

He starts with a fallacious model that says that this would have tapered off anyway and consequently social distancing measures had no additional affect on decreased rates of infection.

It's circular reasoning and scientific fraud published by someone with no credentials in the field and unreviewed by anyone with proper credentials.

Anyone with any experience in engineering or the mathematical sciences can detect the deception he has engaged in.

And while I am in favor of appropriate public health measure and I support ridding ourselves of ties to the CHICOMs, I also don't support destroying our economy or the economic well-being of individual Americans.

That said, this is fraud. He assumes his conclusion in equation 1 of this paper and then proves his conclusion.

[rktman]

Just 6 months? More like decades? Some will make out just fine, others not so much. SBA loans for some, not for others.

[MortMan]

How is what you wrote any different than the CCP models used to lock down the states?

[AndyJackson]

WHAT? I am not defending anyone’s model. I am attacking this particular fraud, not defending someone else’s fraud.

[Big Red Badger]

Just thinking
Out Loud,
Trump has His work
Cut Out for Him.
.

[gas_dr]

So this is one of several studies demonstrating that the Swedish model performs as well as if not superior to the lock down model. Do you disagree the conclusions as to that. Please provide data driven counters (not your opinion) contradicting this position evidenced by even the WHO today

Then answer this question. If the Swedish nonrestrictive model is equal to a lock down model as a scientific principle then are we not compelled to utilize the lease intrusive technique which would be a nonrestrictive technique.

We all know you to be a world class Fearper. Since you throw down the gauntlet of data driven let’s here your responses to the above data

[AndyJackson]

So this is one of several studies demonstrating that the Swedish model performs as well as if not superior to the lock down model.

This paper demonstrates nothing.

It's like set out to prove that the sky is blue by putting a blue filter on my camera and taking a picture. Voila the sky is blue.

Well, the sky IS blue, but I committed a scientific fraud. I would have gotten a blue sky if it were orange because I put a blue filter on the camera.

This guy started with a fallacious model with adjustable parameters, and got the conclusion that is built into the model.

Whatever the truth about the Swedish model, this paper proves nothing about it because it proves nothing at all. It's a fraud Jim. It's a fraud.

[MortMan]

So you agree the virus models are also fraudulent?

I am not defending any fraudulent use of data. Nor am I asking you to do so. I am simply pointing out that the same rules absolutely must be followed by all sides.

[AndyJackson]

let’s here your responses to the above data

What data? You have provided no data.

Here is what data looks like.

There is a lot more data at The financial times

You can argue that the data is inaccurate if you wish, but to counter it with data you have to provide actual data - you know a compilation of genuine numbers and dates with sources so we can understand what was done.

[brookwood]

NYC has 18,231 Covid deaths already which is .22% of the population of 8,400,000. This is the lowest possible infection mortality rate assuming every single person in NYC is infected.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page
The recently completed study of 3,000 New Yorkers found an infection rate of 21% in New York City.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-04-23/new-york-coronavirus-antibody-tests-show-infection-rate-of-nearly-14
Therefore the total infected population of New York City is .21 * 8,400,000 = 1,764,000. This includes those infected but who show no symptoms.
Therefore the infection fatality rate for Covid19, based on over 18,231 fatalities, is 18,231 / 1,764,000 = 1.03%

The quoted death rate of .1% for seasonal flu is the number of deaths over the number of SYMPTOMATIC flu cases. Those without symptoms are not part of the denominator in that calculation (see CDC link below). It is estimated (see nhs.uk link below) that 75% of regular flu cases show no symptoms. This brings the infection fatality rate for regular flu from .1% to .025% if you count infected people instead of just symptomatic people. Covid19 therefore 40 times deadlier than the flu, you can distort the numbers however you want, you can believe whatever you want, but no one can make a plausible argument that Covid19 isn’t at least 10 times deadlier than the seasonal flu, no matter how hard they try.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-24/is-coronavirus-worse-than-the-flu-blood-studies-say-yes-by-far
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/three-quarters-of-people-with-flu-have-no-symptoms/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-many-people-already-have-covid-19/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/21/revealing-chinese-virus-excess-death-graphs-coronavirus/

[AndyJackson]

So you agree the virus models are also fraudulent?

Which virus models. Point to one. The models are all inaccurate, we know that.

[MortMan]

“Inaccurate” versus “fraudulent” says exactly what you are doing in your comment, which I called out in my original reply.

[cherry]

just what I've been saying...lockdown has not saved one life.....it made the nursing home elderly sitting ducks.....

isolation should have been a choice....

[Chauncey Gardiner]

Several studies show the Swedish approach is perhaps the path we should have taken. I for one am glad however, that we have exposed the quackery and fraud of doctors Fauxi and Scarf Queen.

[gas_dr]

However if you look at NYC data it shows that 1/3 of those cases are presumptive. So if you are intellectually honest (which you have an opportunity to be at this time) you reduce that number to 11,500 which is confirmed cases

[gas_dr]

As I said this is one of several papers that conclude the same about Sweden. You only attack this paper. I think the findings are very consistent with other papers but my question was for you to answer the larger question. And as usual you just focus on meeting your agenda.

You had a chance to engage in data driven debate which is your rallying cry and yet fail to do so when presented the data

Still intellectually dishonesty pervades your posts.