“Dr. Fauci Urges Caution About Relying on Coronavirus Antibody Tests.” I predicted this. Folks, I was minding my own business on Friday, and I got a flag email from my friend Victor Davis Hanson, and it was a preliminary report on Stanford University’s research in Santa Clara County. It is bombshell. It was the prepublication. The file that he sent me was actually the preprint version, which is pre-peer review.
But
here is the take-away paragraph from the research. It suggests that one
county’s cases, Santa Clara, California — which, by the way, is where
the 49ers are. For those of you who know geographic by your sports
teams, Santa Clara is where the 49ers stadium is, 49er training complex.
They’re not in San Francisco anymore. “One county’s cases could be more
than double the entire state’s reported cases by testing.“Even a 1% to 4% existing positives to the virus in a population, completely overturn the case-to-fatality rates. In this case, the figures work out to a mortality rate of 0.1%, not 1%, not 2%, not 4%, not 5% — 0.1% at the high, and the low end, 0.02%. That would be like a normal or bad flu year. One to two per thousand dying in the population. Remember, when we started, the models here that everybody swore by which gave us the lockdown policy were predicting four to one dying per hundred — per hundred, not thousand.
So here is the paragraph from the Stanford study. “These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, which is 50 to 85 times more than the number of confirmed cases. The population prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infectious is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.
“Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality…” The bottom line is here is they found — their research, Stanford University, found — the number of cases, number of people who had infectious, the vast majority never knew it or their asymptomatic or they suffered, didn’t go to the hospital, 50 to 85 times the reported cases. If this is true, it means the death rate is way down, that the mortality rate for COVID-19 is so low that it may even be lower than the flu every year.
Now we have similar results popping up in other geographic areas of the country. I think the total… I don’t have it at my fingertips here. The total number of reported cases in Santa Clara County is in the thousands, and these people’s research have found it 50 to 85 times that, based on testing, based on antibody testing and a number of other things they have done. Stanford University researchers.
Now, these guys have been on television through the weekend explaining their research, and this is what Dr. Fauci’s replying to. “Dr. Fauci Urges Caution About Relying on Controversy Antibody Test.” Let me tell you something, folks. The antibody tests are gonna be much more helpful than the actual test for the virus. Can you tell me why? This is a simple answer. Why is testing…?
It sounds really good, but it may end up meaning nothing unless you do it a certain way? You’d have to test everybody every day. So we test Snerdley tomorrow. Snerdley comes back negative. He doesn’t have the virus. Doesn’t mean he’s not gonna get it the next day or the next week. We hope he doesn’t have it. The point is, you have to test every every day. The testing gives you a snapshot of the moment that you test, but it’s not predictive. It doesn’t tell you…
That’s why the antibody test is March for reliable. So here we have competing research, research that flies in the face of the models, researches that flies in the face of the existing policy of lockdown and social distancing and we’re told we can’t rely on it. When the models have yet to be right. You might remember weeks ago, I shared with you a story from the U.K. by a researcher named Dr. John Lee, L-e-e.
He was very, very, very, very concerned that a number of deaths that were not COVID-19 were being recorded as such in the United Kingdom. The theory was that the death rate from COVID-19 was being way elevated because there’s a political need, there’s a political benefit to chalking up as many deaths to COVID-19, ’cause it’s money — and of course, it advances a political agenda. You can’t take the politics out of this, which is frustrating as well. Well, Mr. Lee predicted that the lockdown was not necessary.
He admitted he was guessing, admitted it was his opinion. It was more than guessing, but based on the knowledge the facts, the information he had at the time. This is three or four weeks ago. He thought this lockdown’s not necessary. These Draconian steps not necessary. He’s back with a new piece. There’s no direct evidence that the lockdowns are working. So three weeks ago, they weren’t necessary.
Now, there’s no evidence that they’re even working. In addition to his piece, Dr. John Ioannidis — part of the Stanford University team — has expanded on the idea that the contamination rate, the infectious rate may be 50 to 85 times higher in Santa Clara County. They don’t know anywhere else, they haven’t studied anywhere else, but you can extrapolate. And, let’s see… “Swedish Epidemiologist John Giesecke: Why Lockdowns Are the Wrong Policy.”
And, Brian, quickly, I want to throw something. Saw this on from it briefing, and I had to get it ’cause this is so… Put it up, Brian, that chart. The Scarf Queen put this chart up on Friday. Let me tell you what this is. This is the cumulative cases of the top 25 metro areas, number of cases. That you see one line…
You’ll
be able to see it. Go to the website. See that one line trending way
up? That is New York. You see all those lines bunched way down at the
bottom up through April 17th, up through Friday, that’s the 24 other
major metro areas. What does this tell you? It tells you our problem has
been in New York, but it hasn’t been as equally bad anywhere else, not
even close.For one reason, they don’t have subways that are remained open with people sardined on ’em as they have in New York. But that’s stunning. The number of cases in the top 25 metro areas, New York stands alone, nobody… (interruption) No, I’m not being critical of New York. I’m suggesting that we have based a national policy on one metro.
Now, to add to the Stanford study, John Lee: “No direct evidence that lockdowns are working,” and the next one that I have here in the Stack, “Swedish Epidemiologist Johan Giesecke: Why Lockdowns Are the Wrong Policy,” is this. And this comes from the Associated Press. Headline: “Reports Suggest Many Have Had Coronavirus with No Symptoms.”The paragraph says, “A flood of new research suggests that far more people have had the coronavirus without any symptoms, fueling hope that it will turn out to be much less lethal than originally feared.” That’s what Stanford says. That’s what John Lee says. That’s what the Swedish guy says. More people are starting to say this, based on testing and the reputation of these models. Models are not science, folks.
Models
are not science. You may as well be using tarot cards, the way they
revise these things. Now, here is the important quote from the AP
article from Dr. Michael Mina, Harvard School of Public Health: “We have just been off the mark by huge, huge numbers estimating total infections.” Now, you have to look hard to find this stuff ’cause cable news is not using any of this, folks.Let me put some numbers to Santa Clara to put this in perspective for you. Again, the Stanford research says that the number of infections, the number of people who’ve been infected with coronavirus is 50 to 85 times higher than reported. The number of confirmed cases reported in Santa Clara County and being cited by all of the experts, 956. So let’s round that up to a thousand.By the way, the population of Santa Clara County is 116,468. And of that, the official number is that 956 confirmed cases — gonna round that up to a thousand. Meaning that, according to Stanford, between 50,000 and 85,000 or, potentially, well over half the county has been infected. The death rate doesn’t change. The death rate is what it is. So the death rate in Santa Clara County, as a percentage of, you know, 968 as a percentage of the number of cases reported, 956 confirmed cases. So if that 956 becomes 50,000 to 85,000, the death rate in Santa Clara County is infinitesimally small.
The death rate doesn’t change, but if you use their research and you extrapolate 1,000 cases becomes 50,000 to 85,000 cases, but the death rate remains the same, it means that the mortality rate, the fatality rate is way, way smaller than what’s being reported and cited by all of the experts. The number of infected, again, could be anywhere from 50 to 85,000. The deaths — don’t have the numbers in front of me here on the number of deaths, but whatever it is, you divide that number into 85,000 or 50,000 instead of 1,000? Ha. And you’re gonna have a huge difference.
And these numbers are not alone. They’re being reported in Massachusetts. They’re being reported in other parts of the country. Again, this AP story: “A flood of new research suggests that far more people have had the coronavirus without any symptoms, fueling hope that it will turn out to be much less lethal than originally feared.” And there’s a quote from a Harvard professor, School of Public Health, Dr. Michael Mina, “We have just been off the mark by huge, huge numbers” estimating total infections.
Well, let me tell you something. We now have some competing numbers. We have the experts that are on the White House Coronavirus Task Force, and they’re not gonna budge from their numbers. They’re the experts. Now you have this independent research from people who don’t believe this who are doing their own research.
Folks, I’m gonna tell you, I told you when I first got back here after being out for two weeks that the first thing when I was doing a discussion of the models, the big debate whenever this is over is was it necessary? And the more information that we gather, it is beginning to look like it was not necessary to shut down this economy.
And, furthermore, that it is certainly not necessary to keep it shut down. But these Democrat governors are hell-bent on keeping it shut down. I’ll guarantee you they’re on orders from on high. This is part of the presidential campaign, for this economy to become as weak as they can make it, for more and more people to lose their jobs, that’s how they think they’re finally gonna get Trump. This is their effort to do what Mueller failed to do, what Adam Schiff failed to do, what the Kavanaugh attacks failed to do, what Stormy Daniels failed to do and what Michael Avenatti failed to do. They’re salivating over this.
Some
details here. John Lee, who first wrote a month ago that he was highly
suspicious that a lockdown was necessary because he didn’t like the way
every death in the U.K. was being chalked up to COVID-19. The number of
deaths here that are being chalked up to COVID-19 are way elevated,
didn’t even have an accurate number there. So now he’s back a month
later: No direct evidence lockdowns are working.Let me give you a couple pull quotes from his piece. “For example, we are currently in lockdown for two reasons. One is that the initial figures suggested that we were dealing with a very highly virulent disease. The World Health Organisation initially suggested that the case-fatality rate – the proportion of people diagnosed with the disease who die – would be 3.4 per cent.
“This is a very high number which would have caused a huge number of deaths. But as we have had gradually more and more data coming in, those percentages have been falling. In many examples, more complete data are now suggesting case-fatality rates of 0.4 per cent. My guess is that it will end up between 0.5 and 0.1 per cent, and probably nearer to the lower end of that. So if the disease isn’t as virulent as was originally thought, the number of deaths will be correspondingly lower.”
And again, this is exactly what’s been learned and discovered in Santa Clara County, California. “The second reason that we were then put into lockdown is that it was assumed that this new virus was going to rip through the population, and a very high percentage of people were going to be infected quickly. This would cause a big surge or peak of cases which healthcare systems wouldn’t be able to deal with. The lockdown is supposed to reduce that peak, to enable health systems to cope with it. We had various pictures from Italy, Spain, New York and other places showing that health systems weren’t able to cope. But of course, in lots of other places, health systems have been able to cope with it.”
And in many other places they haven’t even been taxed. “The real point is that there isn’t any direct evidence that what we are doing is actually affecting the peak. It is possible to make arguments that sound reasonable that a lockdown should affect the peak. And yet other places which are doing different things seem to have similarly shaped graphs. It is only an assumption that the lockdown is having a big effect on the virus spread, but this is not a known scientific fact.”
Don’t tell Dr. Fauci that. This is quite a statement. It is only an assumption that the lockdown, that flattening the curve, that social distancing is having a big effect on the virus spread. It’s not a known scientific fact. You know why it’s not a known scientific fact? ‘Cause we don’t know how many people are actually practicing social distancing.
We’re not in everybody’s homes. Although give the Democrats time and they’ll have drones over everybody’s house reporting in. They’re already doing it in New Jersey. Wait ’til you hear this story coming up. And they’re Chinese-made drones, and the data collected by these drones is going back to China, and New Jersey is bragging about it.
So they’re out there, the experts are saying that social distancing, “Keep doing it, America, oh, the American people are doing so wonderful, you’re flattening the curve.” They haven’t the slightest idea if you’re paying attention, if you’re behaving, they have no idea.
That’s
why Dr. Lee here says it’s impossible to scientifically claim that
people’s behavior — that the lockdown — is having a big effect on the
virus spread. It’s not a known scientific fact because they can’t prove
who’s following orders. One more pull quote from Dr. John Lee in the
U.K. He says, “[T]he very fact that the lockdown was put in place,
despite the huge set of side effects, means that the government has to
justify having done it. In a way, that actually makes it harder to come
out of a lockdown.”Damn straight! There’s no way they’re gonna admit that this was not necessary. There is no way they’re gonna admit that this was unneeded. There’s no way they’re ever gonna admit that it shouldn’t have been done, which means they’re gonna leave it in place longer than they should just to give themselves some kind of PR buzz that they’ve done the right thing.
Folks, this is such a mess. It was so… I’m in the crowd (and it’s a growing number of people) who don’t believe that the severity of this lockdown was necessary. Nationwide, everywhere, it just wasn’t necessary, and it just pains me. It just it depresses me, it pains me to see how easily and quickly we just erased — we just eliminated — three years of unprecedented economic growth in this country.
One more quote here from Dr. John Lee: “I think personally that we should aim to relax the lockdown faster than some commentators are suggesting. The government’s reticence to talk about this is based on modelling assumptions of numbers which we know are fraught with uncertainty. It is equally possible to make a case that relaxing the lockdown more quickly than is currently being suggested will have beneficial effects overall, even if the number of viral deaths ticks up again.”Anyway, I’ll tell you something else that is gonna be learned when this is all over. We have based national policy not on New York state, but New York City. We have shut down a country based largely on the numbers in New York City. Let me grab a phone call quickly before the hour expires so I can remain true to my pledge to always get a phone call in in the first hour during the coronavirus pandemic. It’s a new policy here.
This is Don in Oklahoma City. Don, great to have you, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. My wife and I want to wish you a speedy and full recovery in your health crisis.
RUSH: Well, thank you, sir, very much.
CALLER: This is information that anybody can find using at website CDC.gov and OK.gov. These are just numbers for flu deaths and COVID-19 deaths, and a statement on here, a quote — this is for the U.S. as a whole, this was a quote from CDC — is, “The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalizations estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates.”
So Oklahoma — based on the CDC.gov site — averages 728 flu deaths per year and using the OK.gov site it says we’ve had — this is as of last Friday — 84 flu deaths for the season. That dates back to September 1st of ’19 plus 138 COVID-19 deaths. That’s a total of 222 versus the 728 average. So if you’re talking about death rates, you know, we already know that Dr. Birx said that they are including anybody that had COVID. New York is including anybody that they think may have had it.
So those numbers have gotta be really high. My only point is we’ve had a government shutdown with a death rate that is far less than normal — and that’s normally expected and they accept those death rates. So instead of looking at the media and the Democrats, look at hard numbers and real facts on the government websites. We’ve been told to get fresh air, sunshine, and exercise while observing social distancing. But in Oklahoma City, the golf course are shut down.
RUSH: Oh, they’re shut down.
CALLER: That’s all I’ve got. I thank you, Rush. Wish you the best.RUSH: I’m glad you called. Yeah, remember when the flu numbers were widely reported — which they’re usually not. You know, as a society, we just accept that whatever number of people get sick, they get the flu, whatever number die, we don’t shut the country down, but the numbers are not widely reported. When they were widely reported this year to contrast them with coronavirus, what we, “Ah, (sputtering) but but but but but you can’t compare that!”
“Why not?”
“Well, they’re two different things. I mean, we don’t have a vaccine. We don’t have shots for the coronavirus. We do for the flu. You can’t — you can’t compare.”
So anybody that came up with flu number comparisons was shot down as being unreasonable and uninformed, unhelpful and not useful — you know, all the liberal intellectual buzzwords. But it turns out that they are relevant in more ways than just the contrast. At any rate, it’s gonna be fascinating to see if this remains information sequestered in conservative media or if it crosses over — and what do you bet that it doesn’t cross over?
No comments:
Post a Comment