Brit Hume has really done his part in making sure the American people get to see valid and pertinent information about COVID-19, especially if it goes against the notion that locking people into their homes for months on end is the only solution.
This time, Brit shared a piece from Nobel prize-winning scientist, Professor Michael Leavitt, who claims the virus was never exponential and that mitigation efforts were not the main reason the curves were flattened. This is fascinating:
And he thinks mitigation efforts were not the main reason the curves were flattened. https://t.co/sZncVaB30X
— Brit Hume (@brithume) May 3, 2020
From unherd.com:
His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two-week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”.
This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The ‘unmitigated’ scenarios modeled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt’s point is that that hasn’t actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.
End the lockdowns.
More generally, he complains that epidemiologists only seem to be called wrong if they underestimate deaths, and so there is an intrinsic bias towards caution. “They see their role as scaring people into doing something, and I understand that… but in my work, if I say a number is too small and I’m wrong, or too big and I’m wrong, both of those errors are the same.”
Recommended
Scaring people into doing something.
Scaring them into obeying.
Like locking down.
And they succeeded, there are millions of Americans who have been terrified so badly they get angry at other Americans who are not terrified.
Another way to say it is, all those who are going to get sick will eventually get sick. Once that happens the numbers start to trail off.
— Michael Garabedian (@TexasGarabedian) May 3, 2020
I’m a risk group as I’m being treated for lung cancer. I can isolate myself instead of asking other younger healthier people to isolate to protect me. Quarantine the ill, not the healthy.
— “Yorktanan”❌ (@yorktanan) May 3, 2020
Protect the vulnerable.
Which is what we’ve always done … until now.
Mr. Levitt may very well be right.This lockdown is slowing breaking me down.
— Mark (@surabian_mark) May 3, 2020
Lockdowns are destroying lives in other ways and unlike the virus, it is indeed exponential.
We are being told to listen to the experts. Just not THESE experts that will give us our lives back
— wistah (@MackintireTom) May 3, 2020
Would be nice to hear from these experts more often, doncha think?
Concur, time to end the unconstitutional lockdowns. Viruses have a natural progression of ebb and flow regardless of government lockdowns.
— Constitution (@adopt1776) May 3, 2020
The hatred of Trump has been so devastating to our country, that an overshadowed aspect of the results is people like this just don’t get listen to… To the woe of all.
— Andrew Lovsness (@drewlovs) May 3, 2020
It's time to open the country though, most of the country is at least aware about distancing now, we can do this.
— Richard B. Costa (@Rico_Suave1111) May 3, 2020
Very informative and backed up with data
— Twescartwa (@twescartwa) May 3, 2020
The numbers are not there. The consent of the governed is about to end, we are going back to work.
— Tim@TexasTimbo (@tpestes) May 3, 2020
It’s time.
#ReOpenAmerica
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member