Even though the COVID-1 9 mortality curve has been flattened, mainstream media outlets continue to push doomsday predictions of an impending detonation of deaths. The New York Times, for example, wrote articles July 21,2 and July 3,3, 4 2020, basically cautioning everybody is not get excited about plummeting mortality rates, as the trend could change at any moment.
“Why Virus Deaths Are Down but May Soon Rise, ” its July 2 headline states. The article goes on to claim “coronavirus trends in the United Government are pretty dark right now” — based on surging case amounts, meaning positive test results , not hospitalizations or people exhibiting actual symptoms.
The article attributes the steady and relatively rapid drop-off in extinctions to improved medical treatment and older people being more cautious, but warns that “Deaths may be on the verge of rising again, ” because “middle-aged and younger people are acting as if they’re invulnerable” and has been rising their social activities.
“Their increased social activity has fueled an detonation in cases over the last three weeks, which in turn could lead to a rise in fatalities soon, ” The New York Times states, 5,6 adding 😛 TAGEND
“With testing now more widespread, it’s possible that the demise data will lag the suit data by closer to a month.( In a typical fatal case, the extinction comes three to five weeks after contraction of the virus .) If that’s correct, coronavirus fatalities may start rising again any day.”
This, nonetheless, wholly ignores data showing that the COVID-1 9 fatality rate for those under persons under the age of 45 is “almost zero, ” and between the ages of 45 and 70, it’s somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3%. 7,8, 9
COVID-1 9 mortality — which had diminished for the last 10 weeks straight — is currently at the epidemic threshold, meaning if it slips down merely a bit more, COVID-1 9 will no longer meet the CDC’s criteria for “epidemic” status.
In other words, the facts of the case that young and middle-aged adults are testing positive in droves is not a warning sign of an impending onslaught of deaths, as health risks of fatality in these age group is minuscule. If anything, it seems to show herd immunity is building which, ultimately, will help protect the most vulnerable among us.
Why Did They Want to Flatten the Curve?
The primary reasons for the tyrannical governmental interventions of COVID-1 9 was to slow the spread of the infection so that hospital resources “isnt gonna be” overwhelmed, inducing people to die due to lack of medical care. These interventions “re not” about stopping the spread or reduce the amount of people that would eventually get infected.
It was only intended to slow it down so, eventually, naturally-acquired herd immunity — the best kind — would is an impediment spread. Well guess what? They have changed the narrative. That is why you now do not hear anything about flattening the curve. Instead they transitioned the fear-mongering to horrify the public that the number of “cases” are increasing.
Bear in psyche that you do NOT need any test to be classified as a COVID case. All there is a requirement is a simple upper respiratory infection and you can legally be classified as a COVID-1 9 occurrence to artificially inflate the totals.
Fatality Rate No Longer Cause for Hysteria
The fatality rate data given above were cited by Stanford University’s cancer prevention chairman Dr. John Ioannidis — an epidemiologist who has made a name for himself by exposing bad science — in a June 27, 2020, interview with Greek Reporter, 10,11, 12 in which he blamed global lockdown assesses, saying they were implemented based on flawed modeling and grossly unreliable data.
“0. 05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%, ” Ioannidis told Greek Reporter. 13
“The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are oversaw. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0 %. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05 -0. 3 %.
For those above 70, it intensifies substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing home, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.”
When questioned whether the arc had indeed been flattened in the U.S ., appreciating how no health care structure had been totally overwhelmed, Ioannidis answered: 14
“The predictions of most mathematical simulates in words of how many bunks and how many ICU bunks would be required were astronomically wrong. Indeed, the health system was not overrun in any locating in the USA, although several hospitals were stressed. Conversely, the health care structure was severely damaged in many places because of the measures taken …
Major repercussions on the economy, civilization and mental health have already passed. I hope they are reversible, and this depends to a large length for purposes of determining whether we are able to scaped prolonging the draconian lockdowns and was also able to deal with COVID-1 9 in a smart-alecky, precision-risk targeted approaching, rather than blindly shutting down everything …
I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential both problems and is not simply on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-1 9. “
COVID-1 9 Close to Epidemic Threshold
The fear-mongers also ignore recent Middle for Disease Control and Prevention statements1 5 saying the COVID-1 9 mortality — which had slumped for the last 10 weeks straight-from-the-shoulder — “is currently at the epidemic threshold, ” meaning if it slides down only a bit more, COVID-1 9 will no longer meet the CDC’s the criteria used for “epidemic” status.
The percentage of doctors’ visits for influenza-like illness( ILI) for all age groups has also lowered below the 2019 -2 020 baseline, as noted in the CDC graph below, wrote July 3, 2020.16
The graph below shows the percentage of visits to emergency departments, specifically, related to supposed ILI and COVID-1 9-like illness( CLI ). While ER inspects for supposed COVID-1 9 have visualized a slight uptick, it’s not an extreme increase.
The Truth About Increasing COVID-1 9 Lawsuits
The video above reviews why the rise in COVID-1 9 “cases” is misinforming at best, and not a viable measure of a public health threat. It presents a historical overview of what happened during the 2009 swine influenza pandemic, and how it parallels the current COVID-1 9 pandemic.
In summary, fear of a novel illness — pandemic swine influenza — had contributed to a dramatic spike in testing, attaining it seem like a significant threat as many tested positive. Yet the deaths was insignificant. We’re seeing the same thing happening now. Two things are driving the numbers of positive exams skyward: The sudden accessibility of tests, and widespread testing of asymptomatic people.
Put another route. The sharp increases in “cases” are not proof of disease spread but instead the spread of testing. When you don’t have a test for the infection, you cannot tally positive lawsuits. Hence it looked like there were virtually no COVID-1 9 examples in January 2020.
The sudden jump-start in cases in February correlateds with the arrival of exam kits is sending out by the CDC. Once those experiment kits were used up, the number of “cases” again dried up. Then, once exam kits became readily accessible again in early April, the number of cases skyrocketed — as you’d expect. But again, this doesn’t mean the disease was spreading like wildfire.
It was probably in circulation throughout and countless people were already walking around with it, feeling no worse than normal. The only difference is that test kits became available and massive amounts of people — whether they had symptoms or not — were being tested.
Increased Testing= Increased ‘Cases’
In short, the graphs indicating “cases” in large component simply illustrate the fact that there are testing. Granted, even this is an oversimplification and is not “re going to be” precise, and there’s more than one reason for this. For example, during the third week of May, the CDC declared it had blended the results from viral and antibody tests in its own national answers. 17
This supports a really inaccurate paint, since the two exams describe very different things. The viral test is supposed to identify active infections( regardless of whether “youve had” symptoms or not ), whereas the antibody exam tell me something if you’ve been exposed to the virus in the past and contend it off by developing antibodies. Hence, an antibody exam should not be counted as an active infection or active “case.”
Some data1 8 likewise suggest positive exam answers have refused even as testing has risen to. The question is, could this be an indication that people who are being tested for active infection have already opposed off the virus and have antibodies? Could it be a sign of rising flock immunity?
Unfortunately, COVID-1 9 test data has been so mishandled and the style the data is compiled has modified enough times that it’s virtually impossible to make sense of it at this level. The character and reliability of the tests themselves, both viral and antibody, also appear to be less than stellar.
The CDC has was acknowledged that prior exposure to coronaviruses is accountable for the common cold can lead to a positive COVID-1 9 antibody test, 19 and during an April White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing, Dr. Birx have been told that COVID-1 9 experiments are “not 100% sensitive or specific, ” and that when prevalence is low in the community, the false positive rate will be high.
“If you have 1% of your population infected, and you have a test that’s merely 99% specific, that necessitates that when you find a positive, 50% of the time will be a real positive and 50% of the time it won’t be, ” Birx said. In other words, if the prevalence of infection in the community is 1 %, about half of all positive tests will be false positives.
Only as the overall infection rate get higher does the viral experiment has been increasingly reliable. Who knows, perhaps this is why some of the data hint the number of positive exams is actually declining even as testing continues to increase?
What Happened to the Death Toll Reporting?
As you may recollection, earlier today, the media focused on the death toll and hospitalizations. We had daily news ticker tapes providing us with the numbers of severe and critical lawsuits, and the number of deaths.
These statistics were used to justify draconian lockdown orderings to prevent infirmaries from becoming overwhelmed. Now you hear virtually nothing about hospitalizations or demises.
It’s all about the rising number of “cases, ” meaning infected people, which is to be expected when you test a population in which the virus has already infected the majority. But that doesn’t mean it constituted a threat, since demises is ongoing to plunge.
It seems many are simply unwilling to accept the good news and allow the population to return to normal living. Instead, “rising cases” — especially among previous low-risk age groups — is now being used to justify continued stay-at-home orderings, even though infirmaries are at no risk of being overwhelmed since a vast majority of these cases are asymptomatic and need nothing in terms of health care.
In its April 13, 2020, issue, the German magazine Blauer Bote2 0,21 lists a collection of 75 expert sentiments about the COVID-1 9 menace. Among them is a statement from Gerd Bosbach, 22 prof emeritus of statistics, mathematics and empirical economic and social research, and author of the book, “Lying With Numbers, ” who said( carried from German to English employ TranslationLookup.com2 3 ): 24
“The tripling of the tests resulted in a little more than tripling the number of those who tested positive. This tripling was presented to the citizens as a tripling of hiv infected …
Far-reaching decisions involve secure footings. This is exactly what has been forgotten so far. The echoed equation of the number of positively experimented people with the number of infected clouded the position …
The government’s standard of when measures should be weakened is based on an apparent number of infected people, which has nothing to do with reality …
So we have a muddle of terms, which is ultimately attributed to the fact that we keep talking about infected people instead of positive people. The high numbers remain in memory, such as the mortality rate of 3.4% stated by the WHO. And that creates fear …
We should ensure that the media do not use the ability of images to generate excitements that influence our ruling. If you get photographs of coffins and fatality departments from Italy or pictures of altogether empty shelves, then their effects surpassed the facts of the case mentioned.”
Herd Immunity Likely Much Higher Than Suspected
In associated report, several recent studies propose a majority of the population may already have immunity against COVID-1 9, via one mechanism or another. According to a Swiss study, 25,26 SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies are only found in the most severe cases — about 1 in 5. That hints COVID-1 9 may in fact be five times more prevalent than suspected. This also means it may be five times less deadly than predicted. According to the authors:
“When symptomatic, COVID-1 9 can range from a mild flu-like illness in about 81% to a severe and critical disease in about 14% and 5% of altered patients, respectively.”
They also found that even though people who had been exposed to COVID-1 9 had SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin A( IgA) antibodies in their mucosa, there were no virus-specific antibodies in their blood.
IgA is an antibody that plays a critical role in the immune role of your mucous membranes, while IgG is the most common antibody that protects against bacterial and viral infections and is found in blood and other bodily fluids. As explained by the authors: 27
“As with other coronaviruses, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection induces an acute infection with activating of the innate and adaptive immune structures. The former leads to the release of several pro-inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-6 …
Subsequently, B and T cells become activated, resulting in the production of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, comprising immunoglobulin M( IgM ), immunoglobulin A( IgA ), and immunoglobulin G( IgG ).
Whereas coronavirus-specific IgM production is transient and leads to isotype switch to IgA and IgG, these latter antibody subtypes can persist for extended periods in the serum and in nasal fluids. Whether SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies correlate with virus control is a problem of intense discussions.”
Majority of People Appear Resistant to COVID-1 9
Another study2 8,29 published in the publication Cell found 70% of samples from patients who had recovered from mild cases of COVID-1 9 had opposition to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level. Curiously, 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 also had resist to the virus on the T-cell level.
According to the authors, this proposes there’s “cross-reactive T cell acknowledgment between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2. ” In other words, if you’ve retrieved from a common cold caused by a particular coronavirus, your humoral immune system may trigger when you encounter SARS-CoV-2, thus making you resistant to COVID-1 9.
May 14, 2020, Science magazine reported3 0 these Cell findings, gleaning latitudes to another earlier paper3 1 by German investigates that had come to a similar conclusion. That German article, 32 the preprint of which was posted April 22, 2020, on Medrxiv, encountered helper T cells that targeted the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in 15 of 18 patients hospitalized with COVID-1 9.
Yet another study, 33,34, 35 this one by researchers in Singapore, acquired common cold caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 might build you most resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity might last as long as 17 years.
The authors suggest that if you’ve beat a common cold is generated by a OC43 or HKU1 betacoronavirus in the past, you may have a 50/50 chance of having defensive T-cells that can recognize and help defend against SARS-CoV-2.
81% of Unexposed Someone May Be Resistant to SARS-CoV-2
Two additional studies indicating flock immunity is near were reported3 6 by Reason, July 1, 2020. These include a Swedish study, 37,38 which detected “SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust recollection T cell responses akin to those observed in the context of successful vaccines, is proposed that natural exposure or infection may avoid recurrent episodes of severe COVID-1 9 also in seronegative individual.” Similarly, a German study3 9 concluded 😛 TAGEND
“SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell epitopes enabled spotting of post-infectious T-cell immunity, even in seronegative convalescents. Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell epitopes divulged preexisting T-cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals, and validation of similarity to common cold human coronaviruses rendered a functional basis for postulated heterologous exemption in SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Flattening the Curve Was a Fool’s Errand
So far, many efforts to curb COVID-1 9 infection have proven to be ill admonished. Indication shows the illness spreads mostly indoors, 40,41, 42 for example, casting doubts concerning the sanity of closing parks and beaches, especially during the summer. As reported by The Baltimore Sun, 43 scientists were considering using ultraviolet light to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 in indoor air. Step outside, and you get that influence for free.
The total all-cause mortality is not significantly different than in previous years as to be considered by my interview with Denis Rancourt. Many other extinctions have been shifted to COVID-1 9, bringing a high spike in fatalities, but when you look at the field under the curve for total fatalities, it actually doesn’t are different from previous years.
This was also echoed by the American Institute for Economic Research. 44 Back in April 2020 they referred to the COVID-1 9 pandemic as “An heinous statistical horror story” that resulted in “a vandalistic lockdown on the economy, ” which 😛 TAGEND
” … would have been an outrage even if the assumptions “re not” wildly astronomically wrong. Flattening the curve was always a fool’s errand that widened the damage …
The latest figures on overall death rates from all causes demonstrate no increase at all. Deaths are lower than in 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2015, slightly higher than in 2016. Any upward bias is imparted by population growth.
Now writing a book on the crisis with bestselling author Jay Richards,[ statistician William] Briggs concludes: ‘Since pneumonia deaths are up, yet all deaths are down, it must mean people are being recorded as dying from other things at smaller rates than usual.’ Extinctions from other causes are simply being ascribed to the coronavirus.
As usual each year, deaths began trending downward in January. It’s an annual motif. Look it up. Since the lockdown began in mid-March, the legislators cannot claim that its own policy had anything to do with the declining death rate.
A global study4 5 published in Israel by Professor Isaac Ben-Israel, chairman of the Israeli Space Agency and Council on Research and Development, shows that ‘the spread of the coronavirus diminishes to almost zero after 70 periods — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments enforce to try to thwart it.SSSS
In fact, by hinder herd exemption, particularly among students and other non-susceptible young people, the lockdown in the U.S. has prolonged and worsened the medical question. As Briggs concludes, ‘People need to get out into virus-killing sunshine and germicidal air.'”
Read more: articles.mercola.com