The Story Of The Overreaction To Coronavirus Is Just Starting To Emerge

Rush Limbaugh: More Research Suggests The Full Lockdown Wasn’t Necessary

By  James BarrettDailyWire.com

JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Facebook

Twitter

Mail

On his top-rated radio program on Monday, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh looked at some recent studies that suggest that the nation has overreacted to the coronavirus pandemic, applying measures that might be necessary in New York City but not in most of the rest of the country. In so doing, Limbaugh lamented, we may have unnecessarily caused widespread economic devastation.

“Folks, this is such a mess,” said Limbaugh (transcript via RushLimbaugh.com).  “…I’m in the crowd (and it’s a growing number of people) who don’t believe that the severity of this lockdown was necessary. Nationwide, everywhere, it just wasn’t necessary, and it just pains me. It just it depresses me, it pains me to see how easily and quickly we just erased — we just eliminated — three years of unprecedented economic growth in this country.”

During the lengthy segment, Limbaugh looked at a number of new studies indicating that the number of people who have been infected by the virus is far higher — even as much as “50 to 85 percent” higher — than the total number of confirmed cases. If that is true, researchers have pointed out, then the fatality rate of COVID-19 may be far lower than previously believed. The early findings of a joint study by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, for example, indicate that the fatality rate is below 0.3%, rather than the 4% indicated by simply looking at confirmed cases in the state.

Limbaugh began the discussion by highlighting a preliminary report on a study by a Stanford University research team of the infection rate in Santa Clara County, to which Victor Davis Hanson has also drawn attention. Limbaugh then read the “take-away paragraph” from the study:

These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions: The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

“The bottom line is here is they found … the number of cases, number of people who had infectious, the vast majority never knew it or they are asymptomatic or they suffered, didn’t go to the hospital, 50 to 85 times the reported cases,” said Limbaugh. “If this is true, it means the death rate is way down, that the mortality rate for COVID-19 is so low that it may even be lower than the flu every year.”

The flu’s mortality rate is around 0.1%.

“Even a 1% to 4% existing positives to the virus in a population, completely overturn the case-to-fatality rates,” Limbaugh read. “In this case, the figures work out to a mortality rate of 0.1%, not 1%, not 2%, not 4%, not 5% — 0.1% at the high, and the low end, 0.02%.”

“So here we have competing research, research that flies in the face of the models, researches that flies in the face of the existing policy of lockdown and social distancing and we’re told we can’t rely on it. When the models have yet to be right,” said Rush.

The situation in New York City, said Limbaugh, is far different than most of the rest of the country, even most metropolitan areas. Citing a graph showing the outsized number of cases in New York City compared to the rest of the country, Limbaugh said, “What does this tell you? It tells you our problem has been in New York, but it hasn’t been as equally bad anywhere else, not even close.”

Our major mistake, said Limbaugh, is not how New York has responded but that “we have based a national policy on one metro.” Limbaugh continued:

Now, to add to the Stanford study, John Lee: “No direct evidence that lockdowns are working,” and the next one that I have here in The Stack, “Swedish Epidemiologist Johan Giesecke: Why Lockdowns Are the Wrong Policy,” is this. And this comes from the Associated Press. Headline: “Reports Suggest Many Have Had Coronavirus with No Symptoms.” The paragraph says, “A flood of new research suggests that far more people have had the coronavirus without any symptoms, fueling hope that it will turn out to be much less lethal than originally feared.” That’s what Stanford says. That’s what John Lee says. That’s what the Swedish guy says. More people are starting to say this, based on testing and the reputation of these models. … Now, here is the important quote from the AP article from Dr. Michael Mina, Harvard School of Public Health: “We have just been off the mark by huge, huge numbers estimating total infections.”

“Folks, I’m gonna tell you, I told you when I first got back here after being out for two weeks that the first thing when I was doing a discussion of the models, the big debate whenever this is over is was it necessary?” Rush said later. “And the more information that we gather, it is beginning to look like it was not necessary to shut down this economy.”