The Global Warming Zone, Part 18: Where being wrong makes me more right

I wasn’t going to make another post so soon after the last one. Then I read Dr. Briggs’ article for today, and something occurred to me:

There is probably an error in yesterday’s post.

Dr. Briggs writes this:

The CDC also reports deaths with pneumonia and COVID at 17,122. Now I’d think this is a proper “and”, meaning you can’t add these to the COVID total, but I don’t know. It may be that their report of COVID alone is without pneumonia. I can’t make out from their description what they mean.

Let’s assume Dr. Briggs’ original interpretation was right, and mine – which added the numbers – was wrong.

If so, things change DRASTICALLY.

Let’s look at the CDC’s explanation again for adding this pneumonia category (which sources indeed agreed made guidelines looser – see my post on April 10):

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.

So this change loosened restrictions and was made after Fauci released his model.

This means for the CDC numbers to accurately reflect the criteria Fauci was using when he released the model, we would need to subtract every death that’s a co-morbidity with pneumonia!

So subtract 17,122 deaths.

Now you get this:

21,454 deaths

This raises some questions. For example, if the numbers are, on average, 10 days behind, how are we supposed to interpret them in light of the coronavirus tracking project’s numbers?

Well, the explanation I got was that numbers appeared to be increasing by 20,000-25,000 every two weeks, which would just about do it, right?

But wait. That doesn’t make sense anymore without the pneumonia comorbidities. That means they’re going to roughly double in ten days. And how did this number even come about in the first place?

A little fishy, I’d say. So, let’s stick with that 10,000 deaths number. The pneumona cormibidities number is making everything screwy, but we’re now at a comparative blip at 31,454 deaths.

Now let’s be nice again and assume half of those co-morbidities are kung flu deaths. Remember, this wasn’t apart of Fauci’s original model, but we’re being generous here. Let’s add 8,561 deaths.

Now we get this:

40,015 deaths.

Still over 20,000 deaths LESS than our official numbers, and almost certainly not going to get close to 100,000.

Can you imagine being that catastrophically wrong, and as a result causing a massive countrywide recession that puts unemployment in the ballpark of 20% while killing thousands of people due to overzealous lockdowns?

It’s hard to fathom. If I were Fauci, I would be desperate to get those numbers juiced too. I’m not saying he’s lying. I’m say that if it were me, I’d be reaching for some way, any way, not to be SO catastrophically wrong. Think of the consequences if you were!

So, think we’re gonna hit the 150,000 deaths of the 1968′ flu? How about the 250,000 of the 1957′ flu?

Place your bets!

And wash 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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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