[ April 18, 2024 ]
Everything we have been told about Coronavirus has been inaccurate and untrue. The projected millions dead, overwhelmed hospitals, the lack of hospital beds etc never happened. Those of us who reported on the actuals and questioned the panic and overreacion were designated fake news and tin foil hatters.
- Key U.S. coronavirus death projection slashed to a fraction of original estimates, from millions to tens of thousands
- Expert: Trump Right, World Health Organization Wrong on Coronavirus Death Rate
- Death rates of coronavirus may be HALF initial estimates by world health chiefs, promising study finds
- Director General of World Health Organization Severely Overstated the Fatality Rate of the Coronavirus Leading to Overblown Global Panic
- MEDIA MALFEASANCE: Coronavirus Fatality Rate Reported by the Media Is COMPLETELY INACCURATE
The Bearer of Good Coronavirus News
Stanford scientist John Ioannidis finds himself under attack for questioning the prevailing wisdom about lockdowns.
The Wall Street, April 27, 2020:
Story continues below advertisementStanford scientist John Ioannidis finds himself under attack for questioning the prevailing wisdom about lockdowns.
Defenders of coronavirus lockdown mandates keep talking about science. “We are going to do the right thing, not judge by politics, not judge by protests, but by science,” California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom said this week. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer defended an order that, among other things, banned the sale of paint and vegetable seeds but not liquor or lottery tickets. “Each action has been informed by the best science and epidemiology counsel there is,” she wrote in an op-ed.But scientists are almost never unanimous, and many appeals to “science” are transparently political or ideological. Consider the story of John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford’s School of Medicine. His expertise is wide-ranging—he juggles appointments in statistics, biomedical data, prevention research and health research and policy. Google Scholar ranks him among the world’s 100 most-cited scientists. He has published more than 1,000 papers, many of them meta-analyses—reviews of other studies. Yet he’s now found himself pilloried because he dissents from the theories behind the lockdowns—because he’s looked at the data and found good news.
In a March article for Stat News, Dr. Ioannidis argued that Covid-19 is far less deadly than modelers were assuming. He considered the experience of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was quarantined Feb. 4 in Japan. Nine of 700 infected passengers and crew died. Based on the demographics of the ship’s population, Dr. Ioannidis estimated that the U.S. fatality rate could be as low as 0.025% to 0.625% and put the upper bound at 0.05% to 1%—comparable to that of seasonal flu.
“If that is the true rate,” he wrote, “locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”
Dr. Ioannidis, 54, likes metaphors. A New York native who grew up in Athens, he also teaches comparative literature and has published seven literary works—poetry and fiction, the latest being an epistolary novel—in Greek. In his spare time, he likes to fence, swim, hike and play basketball.
Early in his career, he realized that “the common denominator for everything that I was doing was that I was very interested in the methods—not necessarily the results but how exactly you do that, how exactly you try to avoid bias, how you avoid error.” When he began examining studies, he discovered that few headline-grabbing findings could be replicated, and many were later contradicted by new evidence.
Scientific studies are often infected by biases. “Several years ago, along with one of my colleagues, we had mapped 235 biases across science. And maybe the biggest cluster is biases that are trying to generate significant, spectacular, fascinating, extraordinary results,” he says. “Early results tend to be inflated. Claims for significance tend to be exaggerated.”An example is a 2012 meta-analysis on nutritional research, in which he randomly selected 50 common cooking ingredients, such as sugar, flour and milk. Eighty percent of them had been studied for links to cancer, and 72% of the studies linked an ingredient to a higher or lower risk. Yet three-quarters of the findings were weak or statistically insignificant.
Dr. Ioannidis calls the coronavirus pandemic “the perfect storm of that quest for very urgent, spectacular, exciting, apocalyptic results. And as you see, apparently our early estimates seem to have been tremendously exaggerated in many fronts.”
Chief among them was a study by modelers at Imperial College London, which predicted more than 2.2 million coronavirus deaths in the U.S. absent “any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour.” The study was published March 16—the same day the Trump administration released its “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative, which included strict social-distancing guidelines.
Dr. Ioannidis says the Imperial projection now appears to be a gross overestimate. “They used inputs that were completely off in some of their calculation,” he says. “If data are limited or flawed, their errors are being propagated through the model. . . . So if you have a small error, and you exponentiate that error, the magnitude of the final error in the prediction or whatever can be astronomical.”“I love models,” he adds. “I do a lot of mathematical modeling myself. But I think we need to recognize that they’re very, very low in terms of how much weight we can place on them and how much we can trust them. . . . They can give you a very first kind of mathematical justification to a gut feeling, but beyond that point, depending on models for evidence, I think it’s a very bad recipe.”
Modelers sometimes refuse to disclose their assumptions or data, so their errors go undetected. Los Angeles County predicted last week that 95.6% of its population would be infected by August if social distancing orders were relaxed. (Confirmed cases were 0.17% of the population as of Thursday.) But the basis for this projection is unclear. “At a minimum, we need openness and transparency in order to be able to say anything,” Dr. Ioannidis says.
Most important, “what we need is data. We need real data. We need data on how many people are infected so far, how many people are actively infected, what is really the death rate, how many beds do we have to spare, how has this changed.”
That will require more testing. Dr. Ioannidis and colleagues at Stanford last week published a study on the prevalence of coronavirus antibodies in Santa Clara County. Based on blood tests of 3,300 volunteers in the county—which includes San Jose, California’s third-largest city—during the first week of April, they estimated that between 2.49% and 4.16% of the county population had been infected. That’s 50 to 85 times the number of confirmed cases and implies a fatality rate between 0.12% and 0.2%, consistent with that of the Diamond Princess.
The study immediately came under attack. Some statisticians questioned its methods. Critics noted the study sample was not randomly selected, and white women under 64 were disproportionately represented. The Stanford team adjusted for the sampling bias by weighting the results by sex, race and ZIP Code, but the study acknowledges that “other biases, such as bias favoring individuals in good health capable of attending our testing sites, or bias favoring those with prior Covid-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation are also possible. The overall effect of such biases is hard to ascertain.”
Dr. Ioannidis admits his study isn’t “bulletproof” and says he welcomes scrutiny. But he’s confident the findings will hold up, and he says antibody studies from around the world will yield more data. A study published this week by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health estimated that the virus is 28 to 55 times as prevalent in that county as confirmed cases are. A New York study released Thursday estimated that 13.9% of the state and 21.2% of the city had been infected, more than 10 times the confirmed cases.
Yet most criticism of the Stanford study has been aimed at defending the lockdown mandates against the implication that they’re an overreaction. “There’s some sort of mob mentality here operating that they just insist that this has to be the end of the world, and it has to be that the sky is falling. It’s attacking studies with data based on speculation and science fiction,” he says. “But dismissing real data in favor of mathematical speculation is mind-boggling.”
In part he blames the media: “We have some evidence that bad news, negative news [stories], are more attractive than positive news—they lead to more clicks, they lead to people being more engaged. And of course we know that fake news travels faster than true news. So in the current environment, unfortunately, we have generated a very heavily panic-driven, horror-driven, death-reality-show type of situation.”
The news is filled with stories of healthy young people who die of coronavirus. But Dr. Ioannidis recently published a paper with his wife, Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis, an infectious-disease specialist at Stanford, that showed this to be a classic man-bites-dog story. The couple found that people under 65 without underlying conditions accounted for only 0.7% of coronavirus deaths in Italy and 1.8% in New York City.
“Compared to almost any other cause of disease that I can think of, it’s really sparing young people. I’m not saying that the lives of 80-year-olds do not have value—they do,” he says. “But there’s far, far, far more . . . young people who commit suicide.” If the panic and attendant disruption continue, he says, “we will see many young people committing suicide . . . just because we are spreading horror stories with Covid-19. There’s far, far more young people who get cancer and will not be treated, because again, they will not go to the hospital to get treated because of Covid-19. There’s far, far more people whose mental health will collapse.”
He argues that public officials need to weigh these factors when making public-health decisions, and more hard data from antibody and other studies will help. “I think that we should just take everything that we know, put it on the table, and try to see, OK, what’s the next step, and see what happens when we take the next step. I think this sort of data-driven feedback will be the best. So you start opening, you start opening your schools. You can see what happens,” he says. “We need to be open minded, we need to just be calm, allow for some error, it’s unavoidable. We started knowing nothing. We know a lot now, but we still don’t know everything.”
He cautions against drawing broad conclusions about the efficacy of lockdowns based on national infection and fatality rates. “It’s not that we have randomized 10 countries to go into lockdown and another 10 countries to remain relatively open and see what happens, and do that randomly. Different prime ministers, different presidents, different task forces make decisions, they implement them in different sequences, at different times, in different phases of the epidemic. And then people start looking at this data and they say, ‘Oh look at that, this place did very well. Why? Oh, because of this measure.’ This is completely, completely opinion-based.”
People are making “big statements about ‘lockdowns save the world.’ I think that they’re immature. They’re tremendously immature. They may have worked in some cases, they may have had no effect in others, and they may have been damaging still in others.”
Most disagreements among scientists, he notes, reflect differences in perspective, not facts. Some find the Stanford study worrisome because it suggests the virus is more easily transmitted, while others are hopeful because it suggests the virus is far less lethal. “It’s basically an issue of whether you’re an optimist or a pessimist. Even scientists can be optimists and pessimists. Probably usually I’m a pessimist, but in this case, I’m probably an optimist.”
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
31 Comments
3 years ago
Scientists ARE SUPPOSED to question, that’s what they do. And WE DON’T KNOW which mitigation measures work, and which don’t. Simple example: Masks, Hand Washing, and Distancing. Well, is that overkill? After all, with a good mask, and clean hands, why distance? Does it add anything? Answer: No one knows for sure.
3 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
Scientists on the left are not to question anthropogenic climate change. That case has been settled by “science” so-called …. anyway a floodgate of questions is starting to emerge and thinking Americans are furious. We have been had. Coronavirus is no more a threat than various flu strains society has dealt with for generations.
3 years ago
Reply to
Mark Steiner
Mark: “Scientists on the left are not to question anthropogenic climate change.”
Yes, that’s why climate alarmists are obviously bad scientists. The core motto of science is “Nullius in Verba” “Don’t take any one else’s word for it, you must see for yourself.” When Einstein said that gravity must be able to bend light rays, he caused a big storm, but they didn’t beat him up, they tested it [Michelson-Morley experiment]. It worked ! Gravity did bend light rays. And without Nullius in Verba, we would never know the truth.
3 years ago
They claim they believe in science, yet attack top scientists 🙂
Good article.
Too bad Feynman isn’t still here to poke holes in their narrative and reveal their biases 🙂
3 years ago
Reply to
AlgorithmicAnalyst
“They claim they believe in science” But we know that’s baloney. Dogma is the opposite of science, and Marxism is 100% unscientific dogma. Marxists weaponize science, by cherry-picking stuff that might help them, and suppressing or ignoring the mountain of evidence that proves them wrong. Exhibit #1: Socialism ALWAYS makes poverty worse. E.G., Venezuela, Detroit.
3 years ago
are flying carpet repair shops an essential service? asking for a friend
3 years ago
So far the expression “Bullshit baffles brains” seems to apply in pretty well all the statistics concerning Covid-19 so far. Will we ever get accurate figures for this pandemic when things stele down? Somehow I doubt it, especially when politicians are involved in manipulating the numbers.
3 years ago
Reply to
Name
Name: SNAFU = Situation Normal, All F’d Up.
This is the first time in human history that we have undertaken to fight an epidemic like a war. SNAFUs are inevitable. Many mistakes are made, because we are still learning, but we will win this, and we will be ready when China send another one.
3 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
Why are we always on the receiving end of crap from China? Why don’t we send them something destructive…like Biden, Hillary, or Sanders?
3 years ago
Reply to
Name
China produces a river of epidemics. Most pandemics originate in China. Most swine flus and bird flus start in China. And this is not the last pandemic from China.
Recent China virus outbreaks:
1 China — Hong Kong flu1968 pandemic, still in circulation today
2 China — SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) pandemic 2002
3 China — hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) enterovirus (EV-71) 2005
4 China — Wild polio virus type 1 (WPV1) 2011
5 China — A(H7N9) avian influenza 2012-2017
6 China — A(H5N6) avian influenza 2016
7 China — A(H7N4) avian influenza 2018
8 China — Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic 2019, still in circulation today
“Why Do New Disease Outbreaks Always Seem to Start in China?”
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2020/02/18/why_do_new_disease_outbreaks_always_seem_to_start_in_china.html
3 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
The foot and mouth outbreak, of 2000, which devastated the pork industry in Europe and the UK, originated out of The Netherlands.
And, speaking of swine flu … The Mexican Swine Flu, originated out of Mexico. It was so widespread that approximately 20% of the Japanese public was infected.
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) enterovirus (EV-71) 2005 is a different disease than foot and mouth disease.
And I left out H1N1 swine flu 2009, because it came from Mexico.
3 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
Actually, hoof and mouth is often, very often, referred to as hand, foot, and mouth disease.
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Animals don’t have hands! [but they should]
From a disease website:
Not the Same as Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Hand, foot, and mouth disease is often confused with foot-and-mouth disease (also called hoof-and-mouth disease), which affects cows, sheep, and pigs.
Humans do not get the animal disease, and animals do not get the human disease.
https://www.cdc.gov/hand-foot-mouth/index.html
3 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
I hate it when I reply with data and links and the comments “don’t take”.
So, to summarize a lengthy post that went bye-bye ….
Humans have been known to contract hoof and mouth disease from cloven hoofed animals. Supposedly the only infected are those that eat meat, from the diseased animals. Or, drink untreated milk. Or, work with the infected animals. It has been known to be contracted by humans, by contact with surfaces in trucks, loading ramps, footwear, clothing or other equipment – and feed containing products derived from infected animals.
There was quite the outbreak, in Libya, in 2011.
All of my copied links disappeared with all of my cut-n-paste crap, from the earlier non posting comment.
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Well never mind. I didn’t know they were different until I wrote that thing about Chinese diseases. Around farmers, there is only foot and mouth, and they never even think about human diseases with similar names. And anyway, the disease in China affected humans.
3 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
To win battles, much less war, strategists need accurate data. As long as the AMA is sending out how to “fudge” on death certificates, which corresponds with what “guidance” from CDC, AND tip sheets from CMS.
In no way, shape, or form, will there ever be accurate data.
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Ach: Question. USA annual mortality from all causes in 2019 = 2,813,503
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
I can’t find 2020 mortality data.
In the absence of better data, total USA mortality for all causes in 2020 is expected to be the same as 2019 = 2,813,503
Add 90,000 for Covid-19 [because USA is at the top of the ‘camel hump’ of epidemic data, and must go down the other side, so roughly 45,000 [to go up] and 45,000 [to go down].
So I calculate the expected mortality for 2020 to be :
2,813,503 [from 2019] + 90,000 = 2,903,503
= 3.2% increase in USA mortality for 2020 [roughly]
So question: Is that a lot to you, or a little?
3 years ago
Reply to
DemocracyRules
If 25% of those listed as Covid-19 deaths were NOT even infected with the virus … any statistics are irrelevant.
From a strategist’s standpoint, overestimating an enemy’s manpower can lead to terribly poor battle plans.
Whether the number is 100 or 1,000,000. You don’t want to make strategy decisions with faulty data.
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Yes, but this is just a question to you, using your life experience and moral reasoning. If the total USA mortality for 2020 increased by 3.2% from Covid-19, would that bother you, or not? [And after you answer, I’ll tell you what Patti said.]
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Good enough! Thanks.
Patti said: Well, it’s “a lot” less than what the early predictions were, so in that sense it’s “a little” – not sure what else to say except the old stand-by “it is what it is” and “we’ll see”.
AND I’m still thinking.
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Another commenter. We discussed all causes US mortality stats.
3 years ago
Reply to
Achmed Mohandjob
Good enough! Thanks.
Patti said: Well, it’s “a lot” less than what the early predictions were, so in that sense it’s “a little” – not sure what else to say except the old stand-by “it is what it is” and “we’ll see”.
AND I’m still thinking.
3 years ago
I’ve been calling this a hoax from the start, as have many others. I don’t deny there’s a virus out there but the reaction! Way overblown. This can now officially be labeled a “scamdemic.”
3 years ago
I started recognizing errors in reporting at the start. This is why I call this fiasco a hoax.
3 years ago
It appears there is near unanimity that the CCP Virus attacks and kills the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, and when it does it is far more lethal than the flu; however, the young and healthy are nearly immune. There is no excuse to shut down the economy. Open up, protect the vulnerable, and the healthy can practice good hygiene, social distancing, and whatever else it takes to obtain herd immunity so the vulnerable can emerge from isolation.
3 years ago
LOOK AT SWEDEN.
