Balances

Would you consider the shutting down of an entire national economy for a disease such as the Black Death, which between 1347-1351 killed an estimated 60% of the population in the areas where it spread, to be a proportionate response? What about for a virus which carries — at the very most (see below) — a mortality rate of 1.4% for those who contract it?

Such decisions should be weighed in the balances. In the left-hand side, there is the number of people who could die from the illness, the burden this will place on the health care system and other vital services, and the consequent misery and devastation this will cause to individuals, to families, to businesses, and to society at large. In the right-hand side, there is the possibility of economic collapse, with the mass job losses, destruction of businesses, and extreme poverty this would bring for many.

For something like the Black Death, it is something of a no-brainer. If you don’t shut down everything very quickly, not only will people start dropping dead like flies, but the economy you are attempting to save will soon have nobody to work in it. If you were foolish enough to try to keep your economy running during such a situation, you’d end up with the worst of both worlds: almost no people and almost no economy.

But what about the virus with a 1.4% (maximum) mortality rate for those who get it? How do the scales balance out there?

For some, even asking this question smacks of callousness, since it seems to them that what we are being asked to do is equate people with commerce and money. Well, perhaps there are some who do indeed see it in those terms, and somehow come to the conclusion that making money is more important than human beings. I am most assuredly not one of them. Yet it’s actually nothing to do with people vs money at all. It’s actually all about people, since shutting down an entire economy, or thereabouts, is bound to have massive effects on large numbers of people.

If you take the kinds of drastic action that we are currently seeing, it is unquestionably going to lead to massive job losses, huge redundancies, thousands of small to medium businesses going to the wall, future generations saddled with debt, and millions of people thrust into poverty with no way out. But it is not just economic considerations that go into that side of the scales. With some of the more draconian action being proposed and taken at the moment, among other things there are also:

  • Huge risks to the mental health of millions of people
  • The stripping of civil liberties on a scale never seen before and which may never be restored after the health crisis is over
  • The frightening possibility of mass civil unrest the longer the measures continue

It is no exaggeration to say that if you shut down workplaces, schools, restaurants, pubs, churches, shops, markets etc for any length of time, the consequences are likely to be devastating, and your society might not recover for a generation or more  — if it ever does.

The question, therefore, is nothing to do with saving lives versus a selfish fancy for a pint or a pizza. There is something called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and the basic question to be answered is whether the response to a virus with a maximum 1.4% mortality rate is proportionate, and whether the actions being taken might actually precipitate profound long-term consequences that turn out to be even greater than the threat that was being tackled.

But there is much more to it than this. I have been using the figure 1.4% throughout this piece, and it’s time to discuss where this comes from, and why it too needs to be taken with a number of caveats that suggest a real figure that is probably far lower than this. The figure comes from a study published in Nature Medicine, and reported on here in the New York Times. According to the NYT:

“A new study reports that people who became sick from the Coronavirus in the Chinese city where the outbreak began likely had a lower death rate than previously thought. The study, published in Nature Medicine, calculated that people with Coronavirus symptoms in Wuhan, China, had a 1.4% likelihood of dying. Some previous estimates have ranged from 2% to 3.4%.”

This is very interesting not just for what it does reveal — the 1.4% figure — but for a couple of things that are unsaid but implied. These are:

  1. Since the original mortality estimates far exceed the later data, it is quite possible that much of the panic that has ensued has been based on faulty and exaggerated figures.
  2. The fact that the people who died had Coronavirus symptoms in no way proves that this is what they actually died from, and therefore this figure of 1.4% may itself be higher than the reality.

Taking point one first. If indeed the mortality rates from Wuhan are far lower than previously thought or assumed, then could it be that Governments across the world, including the British Government, may have been taking enormous socioeconomic decisions based on incorrect data? John Ioannidis, Professor of medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University, certainly thinks this is the case:

“At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 [Covid-19] or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.”

He goes on to chart the devastating consequences that may arise from some of the measures that are being imposed as a result of this data vacuum:

“One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.

… with lockdowns of months, if not years, life largely stops, short-term and long-term consequences are entirely unknown, and billions, not just millions, of lives may be eventually at stake.”

On the second point — that people dying in Wuhan with Coronavirus symptoms doesn’t prove that this is what they actually died from — there is now evidence coming out of Italy in recent days, from the Italian National Health Institute (ISS), which highlights this point in an extremely startling and unnerving way. According to their data (which you can find in the original Italian here or in English here):

  • The average age of the positively-tested deceased in Italy is currently about 81 years.
  • 80% of the deceased had suffered from two or more chronic diseases.
  • 50% of the deceased had suffered from three or more chronic diseases.
  • Less than 1% of the deceased were healthy persons, i.e. persons without pre-existing chronic diseases.

I find these figures incredible, given what we are being told on a daily basis. Italy’s own health authority is basically saying that more than 99% of the country’s Coronavirus fatalities were actually people who were suffering from previous serious medical conditions, many of them multiple. This tells us two things:

Firstly, it is overwhelmingly the case that those who have been included in the mortality rates from Italy, including those we are hearing about on a daily basis, already had serious, underlying health issues.

Secondly, it is not actually possible at the current time to say with any certainty that they actually died of the illness. If a person has terminal cancer, for example, and they contract flu and die, we don’t say that they died of the flu. We assume that the primary cause of death was cancer, since if they had been healthy and had contracted flu they would most likely have recovered. Whereas in Italy, it would seem that a terminal cancer patient who contracted Covid-19, and who subsequently died, is being classed as a Covid-19 death. This is all another way of saying that it is by no means clear that those included in the mortality rates died from the virus, or from their existing condition, or a combination of both.

Suffice it to say, that when you consider these new, emerging details, and plug them into that 1.4% mortality rate, what it suggests is that the actual mortality rate that can be certainly attributed to Covid-19 may well be significantly lower than the 1.4% figure from Wuhan. Furthermore, when you also factor in the likelihood that not everyone with the illness was included in these figures, again you can begin to see that that 1.4% mortality rate may well be far higher than the reality.

It is only really in the last week or so that proper, reliable data has begun to emerge. For instance, one French academic study, which compared the incidence and mortality rates of four common Coronaviruses circulating in France with those of Covid-19 in OECD countries, reached the following conclusion:

“It is concluded that the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably being overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4,000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.”

Another extremely interesting statistical analysis, which looks at a large variety of issues and factors, reported the following:

“Daily growth rates declined over time across all countries regardless of particular policy solutions, such as shutting the borders or social distancing.

Cases globally are increasing (it is a virus after all!), but beware of believing metrics designed to intentionally scare like ‘cases doubling’. These are typically small numbers over small numbers and sliced on a per-country basis. Globally, COVID-19’s growth rate is rather steady. Remember, viruses ignore our national boundaries.”

Given some of the hostility doing the rounds at the moment when people have questioned the response of Governments to this outbreak, I anticipate that some might well have read this piece and still think that I have said that Covid-19 is not a problem. I have not said that, and I do not think that. What I have said can essentially be summed up as follows:

  1. There has been a lack of reliable data upon which to take monumental socioeconomic decisions.
  2. Nevertheless, monumental socioeconomic decisions have been taken anyway.
  3. These decisions will have profound effects, quite possibly tanking the economy, plunging people into poverty, destroying civil liberties, and risking civil unrest.
  4. Now that more reliable data has started to come in, it seems to be showing that the initial concerns were vastly overblown.
  5. Given the above, we must look not just at the left-hand side of the scales, but also the right-hand side, and calmly assess whether the measures being taken are proportionate, or whether they are likely to do far, far more harm to the lives of millions than the threat they are intended to deal with.

Adding the new data coming out about the virus and mortality rates to the left-hand side of the balances, and considering the seismic and devastating effects on people, families, businesses, society and the economy that the current response is likely to bring, I can’t say I am remotely convinced that the path we are charting is proportionate or wise. For the Black Death, yes. For Covid-19, I remain sceptical.

UPDATE

This interview with German Professor, Sucharit Bhakdi, is a MUST WATCH. Calmly and compellingly, he demolishes many of Covid-19 orthodoxies currently being used to march us into economic meltdown and a police state: 

 

52 thoughts on “An Analysis of the Covid-19 Response: Weighing up the Threat From the Virus, and the Threat From the Reaction”

  1. The death rate of 1.4% deaths per case published by cdc1 in the USA is actually less than 0.3%. Death rate is the driver of the panic. 1.4% is incorrect because the people tested have severe symptoms. Mike Pence on Youtube emphasized tests are prioritized so mostly people with severe symptoms are tested. CDC1 says 81% of people1 show mild symptoms(and are not tested).

    (positive tests)/ (Covid-19 infections adding non tested)=0.2(20%). 1.4% x 20%= death rate 0.3% deaths/infection.

    (1)www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

    In agreement with this article data from CDC2 and WHO3 show a death rate of 1.45% and 1.30% with tests of very ill people in the USA.
    (2)www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html 3/26/20 4PM previous day: (994 deaths)/(68,440 cases)= 1.45%.
    (3)www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200325-sitrep-65-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ce13061b_2
    (673 deaths)/(51914 cases)=1.30%.

  2. From what I have learned over the past twenty years there are men and women who rise to powerful positions in every sector, including government, and who conspire to create these situations that are then used to implement controls over all societies and people in the world. This time it is no different. They planned this pandemic, whether it is real or imagined, for precisely fthe same purpose. I believe the source pf their power is the monetary and banking system over which the gradually gained control over the centuries and now dominate. They control the issuance of all our currencies.

    Here is just one short video from one commentator in Canada, where I now live, who is a busy bee researching such activity and has uncovered information regarding the planning for the present pandemic that began some time ago. She also references other such researchers and provides links if one wishes to delve deeper. There is a cornucopia of information available.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRJpP83MqNs It is called Event 201.

    Their ultimate objective, as far as I can make out, is to bring about a world government that will penetrate every nook and cranny of our personal lives and radically alter the moral foundations of humanity. They have been identified variously as the “Jews”, occultists, Satanists, Freemasons, and various secret societies.

    I believe that this is the beginning of their final throw of the dice because the spiritual rulers of this present darkness were removed from their positions of authority in Heaven at the Feast of Tabernacles of 2017. They have now come down to the Earth where their agents are now resisting being removed and replaced in preparation for the Parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ and His many sons. As part of this process there will be revelations about their rulers that most people will find extremely difficult to countenance let alone believe and embrace.

    I believe that this pandemic will morph into a second banking crisis that will precipitate a global depression, which will bring about a global reset of the monetary and banking system. The Good News is that these efforts to resist their demise will simply hasten their fall. Before the end there will be a worldwide outpouring of the Holy Spirit and billions will turn to the LORD. The timing as always is in God’s control just like everything else. Look UP for our Redemption draws nigh.

    1. I had no doubts that planning for such pandemics took place, over the years Britain must have spent millions and globally there will have been billions spent in preparing for such an event.

      But that doesn’t explain why we and the rest of the world appear so ill prepared unless of course the planning did not take into account the sick but rather the fiscal and police state controls necessary to contain the public.

      1. Yes, that is exactly true. The focus of the Event 201 Conference in October 2019 was on implementing the the very policies we now see being enacted in the UK. Here is a video and commentary on this conference. Amazing Polly makes that observation too.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRJpP83MqNs&t=1s

        They are no longer hiding their explicit intent to control everything and everybody. Those who have been paying attention for many years are not surprised by these events but the general public still seems to be asleep. As I wrote in a poem when I was in my early twenties, “The warning signs have come and gone, Yet the sleepers sleep on.”

  3. A couple of small notes, though the big picture doesn’t change much:
    1) What the ISS report lists as “underlying conditions” are not necessarily deadly condition in itself… hypertension, diabetes and light cardiopathy.
    2) the underlying pathology data are not for all deaths, but only for a sub-sample, and, I guess, are available because they were present. Leading to the suspicion for the great majority of deaths there were no underlying pathology (except the age, if we can say that…)
    3) The great majority of deaths (97%) seems to be due to the viral lung disease and registered as “respiratory failure”

  4. If it is a Hoax they only need a couple of weeks to pull it off and another two weeks after that for them to admit the scale of the problem was not as great as anticipated and say the measures taken were in the best interests of society as a whole.

    Those measures will take what’s left of the wealth of the 99% and replace it by debt, civil rights curtailed and massive additional powers given to the police and local authorities that will never be repealed.

    If it isn’t a Hoax then in a month’s time we are stuffed anyway, the 1% that have the resources to assist the ill and dying won’t.

    In that scenario, rebellion is the option left if the New World Order is not to enjoy its spoils

  5. More food for my anger – it’s already taken a big chunk out of my savings.

    And for the detractors – I’m high risk.

    It’s Not Socialism. It’s Another Mega Wealth Transfer.

    Craig expresses it much more eloquently than I:
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

  6. I grow increasingly angry every day that I experience the current farce – you might say that my anger is increasing exponentially (and I am a person who understands what “exponential” means).

    I see many quotations that the government is taking advice from “scientists” where the “science” that they do is modelling and simulations – well, creating models and simulations (especially if they are based on incomplete and dubiously derived “data”) is not science. Science is observing, and from those observations (based upon precise measurement practices with due consideration given to both systematic and possibly hidden errors) it is possible to theorize and then create a mathematical model which purports to represent the known “facts” derived from the observations. This model is then used to make predictions which are then tested against the already derived observations and also tested against new observations. If there is agreement between the predictions and the observations then those observations “corroborate” the theory used in the creation of the model. There is no proof in science, just corroboration, and scientists, real scientists spend the majority of their testing existing theories in an effort to try and find those which are a better match with the observations.

    At present we are being presented with predictions of dire consequences derived from models created by people who have been proved wrong before – BSE, SARS in the 80s and many others – and the observations which do not agree with these predictions are seemingly being ignored. WHY??

    2. Agree entirely. Try looking at model theories for man made global warming. Dubious measurements sqeezed screaming into pre-ordained graphs. Then take the worst case scenario and spend billions solving a problem which does not exist. So this kind of “science” has been done before.
      I’m not saying we haven’t got a coronavirus epidemic, but let’s examine and justify the actions against the intended outcome.

  7. 5-8% of COVID-19 patients require ICU admission, which requires ventilator (breathing machine and a breathing tube). The 0.8-2% mortality is based on the assumption that all patients who need ventilation can get it. Given that COVID-19 has a R0 of 2.2 (meaning that each infected person infects 2.2 more people), which indicates a exponential rate of infection (that is, every several weeks there is a log10 increase in the number of infected people, 10,000 → 100,000 → 1M → 10M). In a few months, we can expect 100M infected patients. Given that the number of ventilators in this country is likely not to be greater than 200K in the next few weeks, we can easily see how demand for ventilation will outstrip supply in a few months (5M patients needing ventilation vs 200K ventilators available). Thus, the true mortality will likely be 5-8%, once our healthcare system becomes overwhelmed and unable to provide treatment.

    References:
    – Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: 18 March 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2external
    – Estimation of the reproductive number of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the probable outbreak size on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: A data-driven analysis. Zhang, Sheng et al. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 93, 201 – 204.

    1. The estimate of reproductive numbers is based on a limited sample, Denzel, furthermore a sample that doesn’t mirror real life, the people were stuck in a confined space. here’s another take on on the pandemic by a scientist:

      https://faith-and-politics.com/2020/03/21/coronavirus-lockdown-useless-grotesque-collective-suicide-world-renowned-virologist/

      The Russian on-line outfit Meduza (one of the better opposition sources) published a table on ventilators, it’s aimed at the Russian audience hence the the number of locations in Russia, but it also has figures for other countries, the low availability of the gadget in Italy may have been a contributory factor to the country’s sudden surge in deaths.

      https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/03/21/the-ventilator-problem

    2. Thanks Denzel.

      I think your figures are highly questionable.

      For example, you say that the increase is exponential. Is it? In which case, can you explain why Japan and South Korea, which haven’t taken anything like the draconian steps Britain has taken, have both seen decreases in cases to a point where it is firmly under control and continuing to fall?

      1. Both Spain and Italy saw an exponential increase in deaths when they locked everyone in, suggesting it is not a good idea to shut people up in small flats and houses and leave them to stew in the viruses of everyone else in that flat or building.

        Quite apart from the civil liberties aspect, incarceration means a deterioration in physical and mental health and a huge strain on relationships, as well as crashing the economy.

        This is all hysterically overblown bearing in mind the UK has some 148000 ‘avoidable’ deaths each year according to uk govt statistics

        1. Dear Tony, do not, do not, expect a reasoned response from decision makers whose only higher education qualification is a soft degree in politic, philosophy and economics – science isn’t their bent nor their training. It’s easy to panic, I’ve experienced panic, and then I realized that, if I didn’t ditch the panic (the Donkey – aircraft engine – had failed) I would be thinly spread over the landscape with little prospect of survival.

          Most politicians and their advisers have never been presented with that option – if they panic and make the wrong decisions, it doesn’t affect them (except in the sense of a short term dent in their reputation which is easily recovered). It’s only other people that die as a result of their ill-judged responses to situational effects.

          1. The brain is an amazing organ. It starts working in a mother’s womb and it doesn’t stop working until people become decision makers.

            [Apologies to senator John Kennedy]

    3. Dear Denzel, if I may:
      Report: Italian adviser suggests that coronavirus death rates in Italy may be exaggerated

      I ask that you read this article please – what it illustrates is that the, already suspected to be dubious, data on COVID19 deaths that is emerging from Italy may indeed be very dubious as has already been suggested by the reports from the Swiss Propaganda Research organisation.

      https://www.sott.net/article/431173-Report-Italian-adviser-suggests-that-coronavirus-death-rates-in-Italy-may-be-exaggerated

      Further, I would request everyone on this blog and whomever they may associate with to read more widely than our officially sanctioned news organizations because a very different pictures emerges when you do that. Merely dismissing contrary views as Conspiracy Theories is a not particularly intelligent reaction unless one has solid evidence (seldom available via our officially sanctioned media) to counter them.

      And please don’t cherry pick to support your argument.

      1. Thanks Cascadian. The Tweet from that piece, quoting Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific advisor to Italy’s Minister of Health, is worth reproducing here:

        1. Almost certainly (I must say here – IMHO).

          In all the “analyses” presented to us (the general public) there is no statement of confidence in their estimates, no error bars, no indication of why there should be some lack of belief in the accuracy of their data. “REAL” data is never certain, there are always error bars (calculated or otherwise) expressing the level of uncertainty in the data. No measurement is exact, no recorded death, unless there has been a comprehensive post mortem examination to determine causes (and even then something which isn’t looked for may be missed), can state, with absolute certainty why that person died – so why the unassailable assertion that “They died because they were infected with the coronavirus”??

    4. ANother flaw, Denzel, is to confuse ‘Covid-19 patients’ with people who have contracted, let alone been exposed to and not contracted, Covid-19. In the UK, only those admitted to hospital are tested, so becoming Covid-19 statistics.

    5. Government recently published figures in their winter preparedness document and even they did not predict 200,000 deaths
      They said if R 1.1 then 1300 deaths
      R 1.5 then 78400
      R 1.7 then 119900

  8. A balanced slicing of the coronavirus crisis, Mr. Slane, thank you.

    What may have spooked the politicians and the medical professionals responsible for managing virus research is that we have neither an effective vaccine or an approved drug to kill the pathogen.

    It has felt as an overkill from the start, even today it’s impossible to find anyone who has been infected, or who knows someone who has the virus. As of today (March 22) the WHO table shows fewer than 300 deaths, and some 5,800 infections. We were supposed to see a sharp acceleration from last Monday (March 16), it hasn’t materialised, the authorities keep saying it will come.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

    Fred Furedi has a piece in the latest Spiked, it’s worth reading:

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/20/a-disaster-without-precedent/

  9. In Japan, where I live in Kyoto, there have been huge numbers of Chinese tourists flocking to Kyoto to see the cultural sites and it’s an inexpensive holiday, as China is very near. This continued until the cruise ship was quarantined in Yokohama, kind of the start to the coronavirus hysteria. However, now, everything seems normal, as this article points out. It is surreal living here where I don’t even see the majority of people wearing masks, which people often wear just for things like colds. Restaurants are open, my daughters schools are starting after the spring in several weeks, same as always. And yet the sky seems to be falling in American cities and elsewhere. This is a recent article about this from a very prominent mainstream news source, the Japan Times: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/20/national/coronavirus-explosion-expected-japan/#.XnfunC-RWhA

    1. Many thanks for this, Savorywill. Most interesting. It is as I suspected.

      Well, enjoy your restaurants, sporting events, and going for walks in the sunshine with your children 🙂.

      It seems we over here in Britain and elsewhere have decided to forego these pleasures of life, trading them in for the life of a laboratory rat.

      Best wishes,

      Rob

  10. Rob,
    It’s Darwin or Eugenics, or something inbetween.
    My own suggestion?
    Re-open bars, clubs, nightclubs, gyms etc, but have both the staff and the customers age restricted.
    Only 35’s and under allowed.
    Immunity, herd or otherwise must be the goal.
    The current HMG strategy has a 10 month non spike plan.
    However, in that 10 month we have mini spikes and a severely damaged economy that will lead to other deaths.
    Homeless, addicted, viral pneumonia etc.

    The current strategy has 50 people waiting on a bed as the goal.
    5000 waiting, has the same result.
    Old people, with underlying health issue will die of something.
    Covid-19 might be the something.

  11. I hope you are right. If you are, and it is a lot of overreaction, then we are lucky. If you are right, then it will be pretty obvious in another fortnight. Personally, and regrettably, I do not think you are right.

    The situation in Italy must be either a very extensive and well planned propaganda exercise, or the effects of the virus are really pretty bad. I dont believe it is entirely made up. FTR, I buy your analysis of the Skripal affair, and I am generally pretty skeptical of many official narratives.

    It was possible to control like South Korea with swift and effective measures without shutting down the economy really early on, but it is way beyond that now. The powers that be in Europe and the US totally missed the boat.

    When it was just China, there were lots of fairly good arguments that it was far worse there than the numbers suggested – sulhur dioxide clouds, portable incinerators, people dying at home not being counted… Now people are placing great faith in those official Chinese numbers. It is hard to believe the Chinese would do such damage to their own economy without being very scared. Unlike the west, one cannot argue it would be in order to increase political control – if anything trashing the economy and locking whole cities up was a significant risk (and remains one) to tha standing and stability of the party.

    The Diamond Princess does not hold out much hope of it being a non-issue on a total population basis if you run the numbers, unless you make a lot of assumptions about the effects of demographics. Many of those people are STILL critical, and some of those are still dying. Remember they were early enough to get about as good modern care as is possible.

    If all it does is utterly overload the hospitals but nobody actually dies of Covid, total mortality rates will rise substantially anyhow. You dont need to die of Covid if you cannot get treatment for something more run of the mill. Yes, everybody must die sometime, but this is an additional cause of death substantially earlier than might otherwise happen (not just a year or two) and there are also credible reports of survivors who are typically younger having significant and possibly permanent lung damage.

    If you want to look at statistics and modelling, I suggest paying serious attention to Nicholas Nassim Taleb (of Black Swan fame) and Yaneer Bar-Yam. Both good at dealing with low probability but disastrous events in complex systems. They are very worried. They also argue better than I that in a non-linear cost scenario like this, you are better to take stronger action than might appear necessary.

      2. Another small fact, until yesterday (I don’t know by how much it might have changed in the last 24 hours), the average age of people dying in Italy was 79.5 years and all but a handful of them had serious co-morbidity issues. The Spanish flu epidemic killed young as well as old; this virus (to date) is not doing that.

        So by all means protect older people as well as it can be done but locking up the whole population, most of whom are not seriously threatened by this virus, is economic suicide and FAR more people are going to die in the long run from the economic hardship the handling of this virus will cause.

    2. Just FTR: My overall view now is that Rob was right on this.
      Yaneer Bar-Yam is curiously still going on about getting to zero cases, which even taking everything at face value is ridiculous in obviously impossible, even if it was theoreticaly achievable in the first few weeks.

  12. Some very big decisions have been taken on some very flimsy evidence. If it had been clear what response was required, we would not have seen HMG (and pretty much every other government) having a different policy for each day of the week! The one thing we do know already is that the global economy has been destroyed. Millions will lose their jobs and a lot of companies will never again open their doors for business. The promised government ‘bailouts’ will be futile as the business has already gone and in any case the money simply does not exist.

    Unless you test a whole population, you cannot know how many people really have the disease. Evidence is emerging from China that as many as one third of people who have the disease show NO symptoms at all but are contagious. There is, however, one place in the world where everybody was tested and it gives us the best indications of what to expect – The Diamond Princess.

    The DP was a petrie dish of older people ALL exposed to the virus. By the time the ship was quarantined, on 5 February, several people had already become seriously ill. They had been spreading the virus all over the ship for days.

    Of the 3,711 people onboard, 624 tested positive (approx 17%, of which 328 had no symptoms at the time of diagnosis) and 7 people died. That gives a fatality rate of just over 1% (in the age group most at risk) for those who contracted the disease but less than 0.2% of the number of people on the ship.
    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-outbreak-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-death-rate

    Like you, I have no wish to be seen as callous or indifferent but questions must quite properly be asked whether the action taken was justified. Ron Paul’s view is very clear:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYH0LskZWVg

  13. I am inclined to agree. I’m 65 and think that as a society we already direct too many of our finite resources to giving elderly a couple if extra years of life at the expense of those younger. The reaction to Coronavirus just multiplies this 100 fold.

    1. average life expectancy is 65… average.

      are you seriously passing on another +20 years of life? that’s fine for you. your choice.

      you don’t get to make that decision for other seniors.

        1. Excuse me?

          Were you perhaps at the back of the queue when the custodians of the well of souls were handing out moral compasses?

          I’m atheist – but I believe my comment is apposite.

  14. Excellent to see you outlining the sensible questioning of the current hysteria.

    Also, I find this article below reassuring, especially the analysis of chart 7. Chart 7 clearly shows that from 24 Dec, when China shut down Wuhan and 15 other cities (not the entire country), the number of positive cases began to decline immediately. However, because of the time delay in the onset of symptoms and the logistics of the time needed to carry out tests, the number of positive cases continued to rise for two weeks, and then declined. It is crucial that the people of the UK, and especially the UK govt need to understand this. This means that the number of cases being reported in the UK WILL RISE EXPONENTIALLY over the next week or so. During this time, people MUST NOT PANIC because the true number of new will cases almost certainly have been stopped or greatly reduced.
    https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

    Unfortunately, I fear that many people will see the continued increase in diagnoses cases and not understand that there is a time delay in discovering these, and that we will not actually see any reduction in diagnosed cases until around 27th March. I fear that UK citizens will see the number of infections rise from 5k to 10k-15k, believe that last week’s shutdown was ineffective, and scream at the government and military to help them, and save them; and will willingly allow the govt to assume any powers they wish to take.

    The current Worldometer chart showing the growth factor of new cases outside China is also reassuring. It shows that, after several countries have imposed movement restrictions, a steady decline of new cases over the last 3 days, and is currently 0.96. This is crucial, because once the growth factor is less that 1, this means the spread is no longer exponential, and the disease with eventually die out (or at the very least be significantly more manageable)
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200322181811/https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#case-growth-outchina

    By the way, the Medium article you linked to under the text “Another extremely interesting statistical analysis” has been removed. A link to an archive of the page is here
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200321174538/https://medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894

  15. 1. the risk of serious social unrest from thousands of young people trapped in poor housing for months on end without diversion or discipline of school seems not to have been considered at all. wonder whether the Met has raised any concern.
    2. there was a doctor from queen’s hospital in romford on the BBCR4 world this weekend, who was sane, sensible and calm – quite unlike most of the medics flooding twitter, incl lancet editor, richard horton. this doctor’s contribution has not been promoted in any way or tweeted out by the BBC, so far as i can see, which is a huge pity, whereas ‘dr jack”s diatribe is all over.
    3. like you, i don’t know what the scientific merits of the current course are – there seems to be disagreement – but it should not be discounted that the govt’s initial approach had some merit, and whether it did or not, the hostility now being shown to any sort of sceptics excludes any real discussion.

  16. Another tour de force, Rob!

    Whilst I agree with all that you have stated I believe also that people need to be aware of the Corona Virus bill which sets out exactly what our government will decide upon tomorrow.

    Regardless of whether or not Matt Hancock is an expert in human rights (he isn’t – he’s got a soft first degree and an equally soft MPhil) the bill itself will confer draconian powers upon the government of the UK. Anyone who believes the “Calm down, this is only temporary while we deal with the threat from the virus.” assurances from the government need only consider what happened when they brought in the RIPA legislation and the misuse that engendered (council employees spying on dog walkers springs to mind).

    There is a very real risk of civil unrest due to those who are most severely disadvantaged by the evolving collapse of the economy deciding to take matters into their own hands.

    We have already seen that the “Social Distancing” measures which the government insists upon being thrown to the winds by huge crowds clustered around supermarkets and engaged in a panic buying binge. Selfishness rules supreme and it will become worse unless some sense of proportion is applied.

  17. The big problem I have is knowing what is true.

    Governments routinely lie, we saw with the Douma faked gas attack that every MSM news outlet went with the lie despite the glaring conflicts of evidence.

    It wasn’t just the US, UK and French* MSM that went along with the lie, all allied countries did as well. * The States that used the lie to justify bombing Syria

    I think there was a serious epidemic that began in China and spread. China appears to have it under control and the damage whilst considerable was in societal terms controllable with traditional mechanisms.

    If what we are being told is happening in Italy is true the disease has monumental proportions that require drastic measures to tackle it. But how do we know those statistics are true?

    We can’t count the bodies, we trust the State and MSM to report the facts as they are but we know full well from experience that that just does not happen.

    Is there an advantage to the State to exaggerate and lie about the seriousness of the situation? Well yes if the western governments want to impose Totalitarian Police States with the least resistance in the shortest possible time.

    That’s my problem, I know that I can’t trust he government or the MSM but I do realise that if what is being reported in Italy is true we are pretty well knackered.

    The hysteria I have being hearing about the crumbling NHS may well be true but to be honest I was hearing that before I had ever heard of Coronavirus.

    It’s a matter of trust and I don’t trust our government to tell the truth but when laws are passed tomorrow implementing Police State rules / Martial Law my lack of trust (and yours) count for nothing.

    Peter Hitchens comments on this too;

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8138675/PETER-HITCHENS-shutting-Britain-REALLY-right-answer.html

      1. India 2nd most populous country in the world (after China) 43rd in ranking with confirmed cases at 396

    2. What seems not to be reported by our wonderful MSM (Main Stream Media for the acronym challenged) such as The Guardian, The Times, etc. is dissenting views such as:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBB9bA-gXL4&feature=youtu.be – be careful to stop start so as to be able to read the subtitles, they are sometimes very quickly removed. Also, it helps if one understands German, not all that is said is in the subtitles, such as “England null comma dri pozent” – 0.3% in England!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_AyuhbnPOI&app=desktop – far better subtitling!

      There are daily updates here: https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

      The most important thing is to endeavour to be aware and not just accept what we are told is true by officialdom and our news media which IMHO now largely functions as a pool of government stenographers.

  18. So why are the hospitals able to cope with the alleged “2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year ” but can’t cope with this allegedly not-so-serious illness?

    Doctors don’t go all full hazmat when dealing with the the flu.
    I have read that half the so-called “mild” cases in Italy have pneumonia.

    The paper referenced appears resigned to most people on the planet getting this. 1.4% of the planet is a lot of dead people.

    There were reports out of Wuhan that once the hospitals were full, the rest were left to die at home, and never became part of the statistics. If the 1.4% figure is correct, why is it so far from the raw dead/infected or dead/(dead+cured) numbers, which are at 4.3% and 12.4% at the moment.

    If you are living with “disease A” and chugging along nicely, with no imminent end in sight, then something like “disease B” comes along and you die in 3 weeks, people will blame disease B rather than disease A.

    1. “1.4% of the planet is a lot of dead people.”

      That percentage can only be given a sensible meaning when it is compared against the percentage of people worldwide who die of other causes. Did you know that 1.5 million people worldwide still die from Tuberculosis? Why isn’t there a big scandal about that?

      The point is that it is not much bigger than the number who die from other Corona viruses such as flu and may be considerably less than that number.

      The government bill I mentioned earlier, which must have been months in preparation, proposes to impose near Marshall Law – if anyone needs to imagine a reason for a generated panic, then imposition of such conditions with full assent from the populace seems, to me, to be a good one.

      What is going on here (IMHO) is a deliberately generated panic.

    2. “There were reports out of Wuhan…”

      Where can we read these reports, please? Some links would be helpful.

      Otherwise…

  19. Thank you so much! Been waiting to hear a balanced and well researched article from a Christian pastor. The self isolating/ social distancing/ on line sermon/ please keep giving at home has got me all worked up. I think I read Jesus and his merry band Of early church folk turned the Greco Roman world on its head by self isolating during the plagues. Too man Roberto! Top man!

  20. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-further-evidence-virus-originated-us/5706078

    https://williambowles.info/2020/03/13/where-was-your-patient-zero-chinese-official-speculates-americans-may-have-infected-wuhan-at-army-games-calls-to-come-clean/

    https://theduran.com/beijing-believes-covid-19-is-a-biological-weapon/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_duran_daily&utm_term=2020-03-16

    https://williambowles.info/2020/03/16/covid-19-cuban-interferon-in-china/

    https://ahtribune.com/world/3940-coronavirus-us-israel-china.html

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

    1. I have no idea whether there is anything of interest in any of these links and I won’t be opening any of them to find out. Instead of just giving a long list of links, please provide a brief summary of the main points of each, so we can decide whether any are worth reading. Thanks.

Comments are closed.