Many people are starting to raise questions about the validity of the assumptions underlying the manner in which infection mortality rates have been calculated.
Such skepticism, is eminently reasonable, given the shockingly high death estimate numbers, initially published by experts, then, in a fortnight, radically revised downwards.
These vacillating death toll estimates and projections, in early April, caught the eye of Andy McCarthy, who explained why, ever-changing estimates from public health officials, were becoming unreliable,
“As I noted in my last post on this subject, by April 5, the projection of likely deaths had plunged 12 percent in just three days, 93,531 to 81,766. Understand, this projection is drawn from a range; on April 2, IHME was telling us cumulative COVID-19 deaths could reach as high as approximately 178,000. The upper range was also reduced on April 5 to about 136,000.”
McCarthy, then observed that,
“On April 8, the projected cumulative deaths were slashed to 60,145 (with the upper range again cut, to about 126,000). That is, in less than a week, the model proved to be off by more than 33 percent.”
Given the continuing ￼divergent estimates of mortality rates, some of which, as McCarthy noted, ￼prove￼ to be ephemeral, many are starting to question, whether the danger may have been overstated. This is a particularly relevant issue to examine, now that there is evidence, that the number of actual people infected with the virus may be far more than originally thought.
In New York, hospital beds were set up in the Javits Convention Center to handle the anticipated overflow of patients form surrounding hospitals. As of the date of this article, few, if any, of those emergency beds have been used.
In Washington state,￼ the Army set up a makeshift tent near Seattle￼, with beds to accommodate the overflow from other health facilities in that area. Not one patient appeared and the makeshift hospital was recently dissembled.
Researchers at Stanford, are conducting a promising and potentially illuminating study of a group of individuals in Santa Clara County in California, to help answer the question, why are there so few relative deaths and coronavirus cases in a state whose populations far exceeds regions with far fewer residents.
In light of those events and others, as well as new results from testing and immunity studies, doubts raised by those who are beginning to question official pronouncements on the severity of the deadly reach of civic-19, are not entirely unfounded.
In light of the uncertainty surrounding the actual number of deaths that are likely to result from the disease, the most profound questions at the moment, is: who will be responsible, when it later becomes apparent, that the economic catastrophe and scope of the lockdown deliberately created, based on the advice of experts, to whom the public and policy makers have deferred, was in the end, not necessary to effectively mitigate the spread of the disease.
Roger Kimball, writing in American Greatness, asks a pertinent question in lighter of the damage that has already been done to the economic welfare of millions of Americans,
That is a question that is going to be asked early and often in the coming weeks. The New York Times and other organs of the anti-Trump Democratic propaganda machine have been endeavoring mightily to score points against the president, making him seem responsible for the coronavirus (e.g., “He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump’s Failure on the Virus”). But the great unanswered question is why we just attempted national suicide because of a pathogen that represents a serious threat to a tiny part of the population which, moreover, can effectively be isolated from exposure?
Great uncertainty remains, concerning when the curve will flatten and what particular steps need to be taken to stop the spread of the virus. It is also important to note, that many of the recent studies referenced above are preliminary, so it is too early to determine whether the report data will show a greater pool of those infected, than previously projected. However, in the coming weeks, questions about the extent and duration of the lockdown, will become more pronounced, as thousands more join the ranks of the unemployed.