It’s going to be interesting to observe how the global establishment walks back its panic-mongering regarding the Wuhan Flu, if and when the expected mountains of corpses fail to materialize. Perhaps we will be told that the media-fueled mass hysteria and draconian controls imposed on hundreds of millions of Westerners actually worked at crushing the outbreak.
I’m not sure that explanation will fly, though, given that 1) we have also been told that Western governments acted too late in imposing “lockdowns” on their own citizens, thus practically guaranteeing Wuhan-like outcomes across the US and Europe; 2) the controls have not been nearly draconian enough, as evidenced by the photos of packed subway cars in New York and London and the outraged reports of people going surfing, playing basketball at the park, meeting their friends for board game nights, etc., in defiance of public health guidelines.
Most inconvenient of all is the example of Sweden, which has stubbornly refused to subject its own population to a Chinese-style “lockdown” despite suffering a staggering 77 WuFlu deaths to date:
While the UK has been placed under virtual lockdown, Swedes are enjoying life with the fewest restrictive measures so they can go where they want and do what they want without the threat of police action. Schools for children up to 16 remain open and commuter trains continue to be jam-packed with workers on a daily basis. Stockholm argues life must go on despite the worrying increases in the death toll as the global pandemic continues to spread.
Johan Carlson, head of Sweden’s public health agency, last week said the country “cannot take draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society”.
In any case, the tide may already be starting to turn:
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Thursday that his stay-at-home order for the entirety of New York State was “probably not the best public health strategy.”
In a press conference in Albany, Cuomo said the smartest way forward would be a public health strategy that complemented a “get-back-to-work strategy.”
“What we did was we closed everything down. That was our public health strategy. Just close everything, all businesses, old workers, young people, old people, short people, tall people,” said Cuomo. “Every school closed, everything.”
“If you rethought that or had time to analyze that public health strategy, I don’t know that you would say quarantine everyone,” Cuomo admitted. “I don’t even know that that was the best public health policy. Young people then quarantined with older people was probably not the best public health strategy because the younger people could have been exposing the older people to an infection. “
Cuomo stressed the need for both public health and economic growth. “We have to do both,” said the governor. “We’re working on it.”
Funny, it was on Wednesday that I asked the following question:
Have mass “lockdowns” ever been demonstrated to successfully contain a viral epidemic, outside of Communist China, which has a track record of lying about the current outbreak?
Does the governor of New York read my blog? See, while it may seem “obvious” that confining people to their homes is an effective way of curbing an epidemic, the fact is that you don’t know that anything works until you try it in the real world. In this case, the observation that a virus spreads through human interaction does not mean that mass lockdowns will contain the outbreak, let alone produce a better public health outcome than a scalpel approach to identifying and isolating the sick. Cuomo, who has presumably discussed this issue with health officials, raises what seems like a very good point here.
In related news, a British scientist whose terrifying predictions were instrumental in shaping UK and US policy, has changed his tune a bit:
The UK should now be able to cope with the spread of the covid-19 virus, according to one of the epidemiologists advising the government.
Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London gave evidence today to the UK’s parliamentary select committee on science and technology as part of an inquiry into the nation’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.
He said that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower.
The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won’t be breached at a national level, said Ferguson. The projections are based on computer simulations of the virus spreading, which take into account the properties of the virus, the reduced transmission between people asked to stay at home and the capacity of hospitals, particularly intensive care units.
Here is Ferguson’s explanation of why the simulations, which previously scared the shit out of Britain and the world by predicting up to 500,000 deaths in the UK, are now projecting less than 20,000 deaths. Judge it for yourself. I suspect we’re going to be seeing a lot more of these types of explanations and clarifications over the coming weeks.
UPDATE: Moving this section to the end of the post, as I thought this editorial co-authored by Anthony Fauci was new (March 26), but in reality it was originally published Feb 28. It is still of interest:
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
A pandemic similar to the “Asian flu of 1957” and the “Hong Kong flu of 1968” – which killed an estimated 116,000 people and 100,000 people in the US, respectively – certainly sounds better than the doomsday virus that was supposed to kill millions of Americans. This of course raises the question of whether a relatively normal Asian viral pandemic is scary enough to justify the “emergency” imposition of martial law on whole states and countries, and the cascading economic failure and collapse that will surely accompany it.