Experts refuse to consider data on low fatality rate

The Wuhan coronavirus lockdown orders have been based on lousy data, and now it turns out that the authorities don't want better data.

Now we are getting better data anyway, and the studies show that the virus is no more deadly than a bad influenza strain.

The NY Times reports:

A survey of New Yorkers last week found that one in five city residents carried antibodies to the new coronavirus ...

Few scientists ever imagined that these tests would become an instrument of public policy — and many are uncomfortable with the idea. ...

On Friday, the World Health Organization warned against relying on these tests for policy decisions. ...

(The W.H.O. on Saturday backed off an earlier assertion that people with antibodies may not be immune at all.) ...

The goal of most of these projects is to get a handle on the size and nature of the epidemic here, rather than to guide decisions about reopening the economy.

Got that? Scientific studies show that millions of people have gotten the virus without having to be hospitalized, that the fatality rate is far less than what we have been told, that it is no worse than the flu, and all the experts say that the new info should not guide public policy!

The lockdowns and the other public policies have been based on the claims that (1) the virus has a high fatality rate; and (2) the rate will be much higher if hospitals get overwhelmed and run out of ventilators.

We now know that these claims are not true. The fatality rate is similar to the flu. The hospitals are not getting overwhelmed. Some of them may even be bankrupted from a lack of patients. And the ventilators do more harm than good, and are not saving any lives.

And yet the NY Times tells us that all the experts say the scientific evidence on the low fatality rate should not be used to guide public policy.

This is like generals fighting a losing war and arguing that info about battlefield losses should not be used to influence war strategy decisions.

Our leaders have gone mad.

Of course the NY Times blames Pres. Trump on every page, such as this in today's paper:

Mr. Trump’s performance that evening, when he suggested that injections of disinfectants into the human body could help combat the coronavirus, did not sound like the work of a doctor, a genius, or a person with a good you-know-what.

Are they really this stupid? Trump was referring to an earlier statement by an expert talking injecting a medicine to disinfect the infection. That is what a disinfectant is. Yes, the word is also used for some common household cleaning products, but Trump was not referring to that. That should have been obvious to anyone with an IQ over 90.

Okay, maybe they just pretend to be stupid in order to score some anti-Trump political points. But why are they arguing that data on the spread of the disease should not be used to guide public policy?

They are either mad or evil.