While public
officials continue to be browbeaten by public cries to “shut everything down,”
driven by a relentless media in hyperdrive to cover every step of this
“COVID-19 crisis,” more and more Americans are waking up to the notion
that the current “crisis” might not quite fit current facts.
Part of the
skepticism derives from the fact that national policy and practice seems to
have taken the Tesla Roadster approach of 0-60 in 1.9 seconds.
February 29th:
President Trump called his first press conference regarding COVID-19. Here,
Anthony Fauci said, “the country as a whole still remains at a low risk but
this remains an evolving situation” while saying that fewer than 20% of those
infected would need hospitalization and that most severe cases would be seen in
older individuals and those with underlying conditions.
March 15th:
as the CDC was issuing their guidelines including social distancing and
avoiding gatherings of 50 or more, President Trump introduced his “fifteen days
to flatten the curve” initiative, mirroring CDC guidelines.
March 29th: Fauci predicts that COVID-19 could kill 100-200,000 Americans and President Trump announces that CDC’s social distancing guidelines will be kept in place until April 30th.
March 31st:
Fauci’s death projections had increased to 240,000 and President Trump wanted
“every American to be prepared for the tough days ahead.”
What happened to
instigate such rapid and unprecedented government recommendations? Apparently,
two disease models -- one created by the Imperial College London and another created by
the University
of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
Though both models
moved the media from simmering crisis to full rolling-boil calamity, both have
since found major detractors (IHME, Imperial College) as the public continues to wait
for their hypothesized several hundred thousand death tolls to materialize in
real time. ......
To Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment