The Global Warming Zone, Part 17: Maybe there’s something to this “Malcolm isn’t wrong” thing

A chart of U.S. deaths from the kung flu, courtesy the CDC. Updated May 4.

Total COVID-19 Deaths: 38,576

38,576

Keep in mind, this is no 3rd party source I’m linking to. It’s the CDC. 

Sure, the data is 1 to 2 weeks behind, but still guys. That’s way too low. Right? What’s going on here?

Let’s take a close look at 6 columns in. Those are deaths from pneumonia AND kung flu, as in, both were marked on the death certificate.

Remember how pneumonia was changed to a presumed kung flu death AFTER Fauci came out with the glaciers-will-be-covered-by-2020 model?

Anyway, here’s the number: 17,122.

Aha. Let’s add em’ up. 55,698 deaths.

Now THAT’S a lot better! It looks right numbers that are a week to two weeks behind.

So what’s the justification for putting it on here.

Well, kung flu is a co-morbidity on the death certificate, meaning, this person had kung flu when they died of pneumonia, and both may have contributed to the death. Or maybe not. Maybe it was one or the other; it’s kind of fuzzy, since kung flu often leads to pneumonia or pneumonia-like symptoms, and pneumonia has kung flu-like symptoms.

The CDC explained this themselves earlier on, when they added this co-morbidity category to the death count.

Oh, you didn’t know? Yeah. This category was added. It wasn’t a part of the death count when Fauci came out with the model. Fauci’s model was only about the number in column 2.

I don’t have an archive, but I do have a pseudo-archive. In my own post from way back on April 10 I was happily cognizant enough to record the CDC’s justification for this:

Pneumonia deaths are included to provide context for understanding the completeness of COVID-19 mortality data and related trends. Deaths due to COVID-19 may be misclassified as pneumonia deaths in the absence of positive test results, and pneumonia may appear on death certificates as a comorbid condition.

That’s actually a fair explanation, but look at all of the canyon-sized holes it opens up in terms of our response.

First, again, the models are now utterly useless, as they used a definition of death that is apparently not just stricter, but VASTLY stricter than what we are using now. By that definition, Fauci is not just wrong, he is laughably, ludicrously wrong, not even in the ballpark of correct. Whoops! His bad, guys!

Hey man, it’s okay. Everyone makes mistakes.

And it is certain that not all of those deaths are due to the kung flu. Considering that most of these deaths come from nursing homes, we’re talking people on death’s door anyway. It’s really impossible to guess, so in the interest of fairness let’s split the difference: Let’s say that as of the CDC’s 1.5 week behind data (again, averaging it out), there are 8,561 deaths from kung flu that have been misdiagnosed.

So what is the real number?

47,137

Now let’s add in 10 days. Ballpark it at 1000 deaths per day. I know it’s been more than that, but deaths have been dropping every day for six straight days and the weather is getting nicer.

57,137

The number of deaths reported on Google?

69,579

Let’s parse all of this out:

  1. By the standards Fauci was using when his model was first made, he was embarrassingly wrong and we most likely haven’t even hit 50,000 deaths. Keep in mind that this is with almost certainly juiced reporting. This is the number that was originally used to justify the lockdown. 
  2. By the new, broader standards currently used by the CDC it seems pretty damn plausible we’re around 10,000 deaths lower than the numbers being reported to us on the front page of your search engine.
  3. We are almost certainly even lower than that, quite possibly a LOT lower than that, due to the liberal methods states are using to report coronavirus deaths.
  4. In 1957, adjusted for scale, their version of the kung flu would have killed roughly 212,660 people. That is going to be over double the deaths for the United States from this pandemic. At that time they very deliberately and intentionally did not lock down, and it is a footnote in history.
  5. In 1968, not even the idea of a lockdown was considered, and we would need to hit over 150,000 deaths to match that one. This one is an even smaller footnote that almost nobody talks about.

Conclusion: Fauci and Birx were definitely wrong and if we were using the standards they were originally using at the time embarrassingly so, and we have very good evidence states are reporting kung flu deaths extremely liberally, so even THAT number is inflated.

If we don’t assume that every time the kung flu is a co-morbidity it is the actual cause of death, even the new criteria numbers don’t contain NEARLY as many deaths as are being reported to the general public.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is not based on anecdotes or assumptions or little known sources most people ignore. This is readily available information publicly reported by the CDC. The only thing that you might be able to question is my claim that the criteria states are using to report deaths to the CDC is badly skewed upward, but even if you don’t believe that – and you should – it is an incontrovertible fact, an absolutely proven claim that is readily apparent using public data, that Fauci and Birx’s infamous “The glaciers will melt” model is epically, fantastically wrong, and that was the model used to justify the lockdown.

I love the smell of vindication in the morning.

Was your hands.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s