Here’s How They Can Push “New Cases” To Keep Panic Going

Here’s How They Can Push “New Cases” To Keep Panic Going

Here, as I showed in the update, are the reported deaths divided by reported cases for the world and US.

These are the crude case-fatality rates. They’re “cases” for a whole host of reasons which aren’t necessarily synonymous with traditional definitions of cases. That usually means symptomatic, or requiring treatment, or even showing up to the hospital. Here, it includes sporadic testing of even non-symptomatic testing.

Like I said, the real numbers of interest are the raw-fatality rate, dead/all people, infection-fatality rate, dead/infected, and case-fatality rate, dead/cases.

The virus is not killing 5%+ of the people it infects! Nor is it even killing 5%+ of cases. The crude CFR is exaggerates, by a large amount, the actual CFR, which nobody knows.

The only way to get the IFR and CFR is by sampling, i.e. intelligent measuring and testing and extrapolation. That has been done with previous diseases, and it’s started with coronadoom.

Depending on the source—like the CDC or consulting previous outbreaks—CFR estimates are from 0.3% to 1.3%, and IFR estimates are from 0.15% to 0.26%. These are reasonable numbers. The windows might not hold the eventual estimates, but they won’t be far off, either.

As of Wednesday night, there were 356,826 reported deaths and 5,781,642 reported cases worldwide. The gives a RFR of 356,826/5,781,642 = 6.2%. It is impossible this bug is killing 6.2% of those it infects, or even 6.2% of symptomatic people.

Yet we can use in the obvious way the estimated CFR and IFR, and the reported deaths, to estimate the actual number of infected, and actual symptomatic.

Here is the plot (which I finally figured out how to do; turns out you can use R’s base legend() with ggplot2, as long as you start with!):

The number of estimated actual cases are anywhere from 25 to 120 million people. That is, about 0.3% to 1.6% of the world’s population had symptoms or were otherwise cases.

The number of estimated actual infections are anywhere from 140 to 240 million people. That is, about 1.8% to 3% of the world’s population are already infected.

Here’s the same for the US (which still dominates the world in reported deaths):

As of Wednesday night, and using our standard sources (which exaggerate death counts), there were 1,689,630 reported “cases” (positive tests) and 94,352 reported deaths. The crude CFR was 94,352/1,689,630 = 5.6%. Again, this bug is not killing 5.6% of those with symptoms. The RFR was 0.03%.

The number of estimated actual cases are anywhere from 8 to 30 million Americans. That is, about 2.4% to 9.1% of the US’s population had symptoms or were otherwise cases.

The number of estimated actual infections are anywhere from 37 to 62 million people. That is, about 11% to 19% of the US’s population are already infected.

If actual deaths are lower, then all these numbers will be too high.

In any case, it should be clear that there are an enormous number of already infected people, and a corresponding large number of un-tested-for actual cases. All we have to do to reveal who these people are is increase testing.

The graphs (which are driven by deaths, which we know are decreasing rapidly) show the infections and cases are slowing. Thus, test results will show what to a large extent is already there.

Yet we see in the media breathless reports of NEW CASES! Don’t trust me. Do this yourself. I typed into Herr Google “surge in new cases” and looked at the news feed (all stories within the last 24 hours of my checking):

This was just on the first page of the search. There are many more to be had by substituting “spike” for “surge”. Nowhere did we find “mild expected increase”.

Now this could be the result of plain stupidity, and given our source is journalists this explanation has some weight to it. But for the same reason, it could also represent a purposeful attempt to highlight the only aspect of the terror they have left.

Whenever you see a report like this, show them these graphs.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. Sheri

    We live in a country where 8 cases of measles is a huge outbreak and panic is called for. What else can we expect from these merchants of terror?

    It fascinates me the HUGE HUGE HUGE ranges on many statistics. To me, that’s saying “Here, take these darts and fling them at that labeled dart board over there. We need a range for numbers so we sound scientific.” Personally, I think that “we have no idea and are clueless” would be a better representation of reality.

    The CDC is now calling into question the antibody test, saying we can’t use it for return to work. They claim a 50% error rate. Since this is a new virus, that could be correct, but seriously, THEY HAD TO KNOW THIS ALL ALONG. It was garbage about using the test for return to work. They don’t want you returning to work any more than any other “progressive, socialist” institution. Stringing you along was always the idea.

  2. JR Ewing

    It’s ALL about November. Every single bit of the media panic. This is easily provable by the focus on mail-in ballots.

    If it were that dangerous to go stand in line and vote, even with the multiple days and weeks of early voting we already have, then it would also be too dangerous to go ANYWHERE: grocery stores, Home Depot, liquor stores. But they don’t focus on those things. Maybe on the margin they do, but not really. Instead they say that the most dangerous thing you can do is go stand in line at the polling location.

    Similarly, why is Andrew Cuomo getting a pass when Trump gets pilloried? Cuomo has arguably made decisions that have led to actual deaths while Trump may say some dumb things but otherwise has made some very shrewd moves. Yet the only person the MSM says deserves any blame is Trump.

    And to Sheri’s thoughts about “stringing people along”, that’s the point. If they just threw up their hands and said, “never mind”, the economy would start revving up and just keep getting better and better before November. The MSM and democrats (two sides of the same coin) can’t have that if they want to get rid of Trump. They need this to last a long time. Not only so they can keep blaming Trump, but also so he can’t claim any credit.

    You want to know why there has been lots of MSM talk about canceling college football? Because that’s something that lots red-staters care about. Get them upset and then tell the media that it’s Trump’s fault that it came to this.

    It’s all about November. Every single bit of the overreaction. If this were 2019 or 2021, we would not have had any of the panic and none of the shutdowns.

  3. C-Marie

    Re: Covid-19, it seems the forward and backtracking of cause and advice is catching up to those giving the same. Do they not know what they are about, or do they know what they are about. I think that they do, and when their grip cannot remain tight, more attempts in the hope of continuing the causing of fear are presented.
    No one wants to get sick, so use normal precautions and trust God. As St. Peter said when what Jesus told them was so far out of their experience….it was along these lines….we have no one else to go to, Lord. And the same with us. “We have no one else to go to Lord Jesus.”

    America is suffering due to moving God and His commandments out of the way so that the legal rights to kill the unborn and just born, the experimentation with embryos parts proceeding even to the making of vaccines, the legal right to “marry” the same sex, the ruining of the innocence of children, and so much more. Things will continue to get worse, step by step, until the United States returns in every way including, politically, to God. There is no other way out of the mess we are in.

    We are praying that President Trump will be in office as long as God wills, but who comes in afterwards is of great concern. If the country continues going away from Him, then He will let the people have what they are choosing rather than choosing to be His.

    It is all right there, in the open, for all to see and know. Choose Him Who is Life!

    God bless, C-Marie

  4. Kalif


    The IRF does NOT tell us how dangerous a given disease is at the population level, even if we know the exact number of people infected. It only gives us the probability of someone dying, given they are infected, not the probability of being infected in the first place (that’s the real missing variable and a source of misunderstanding of the IFR).

    An IFR of 50% that infects only 0.2% of the populations is harmless.
    But an IFR of 0.2% that can infect 50% of the population is a scary thing.

    The IFR is NOT a property of the virus. Rather, it varies from group to group (e.g. IRF is different for people in LTCF vs. young adults) and also varies depending of what people do, where they go, etc.

  5. John B()

    @Kalif : RE : An IFR of 50% that infects only 0.2% of the populations is harmless.
    But an IFR of 0.2% that can infect 50% of the population is a scary thing. 12:19AM?
    It’s late son, get some sleep

    Both of your scenarios represent 1 death in a 1000.
    How is one harmless and the other scary?

    Unless it’s a horrible illness to get through in order to survive.

  6. Kalif

    @John B()
    I am on PST. It wasn’t midnight here.

    Please read my post again. It’s easy to misinterpret what the IFR means.
    You are correct that if you compare the numbers from two scenarios, they are the same in absolute terms, assuming the second number in each scenario doesn’t change.
    The second (unknown) percentage in both ‘scenarios’ is the most important, but we don’t know it (for any disease). That number represents the ‘reach’ of the virus, meaning, how many people CAN get infected, whether it’s left unchecked or not. If that number is high, that’s what makes it dangerous.

    The idea is that if virus doesn’t reach too many people, a high IFR is not the issue (everyone seems to be chasing low IFR these days, just like they do low p values, without realizing what it actually means).

    I hope we agree that if the second number keeps increasing (and it may, because we really don’t know how this thing spreads under various circumstances), it translates to the increase in fatalities, even if the overall IFR is decreasing.

  7. Amanda Whatley

    Unless you can guarantee that someone will not die or be permanently disabled from it, there is no way allowing it to spread is acceptable.

  8. David K

    Are there any examples of “case” definitions prior to COVID within medical terminology, public health policy or with respect to another virus that can show a clear inconsistency with the testing/contact tracing regime redefinition? I’d love to draw a solid historical contrast for my school district as they seem to exaggerating cases and refusing to let the kids back. My guess is these are mostly “probables” off one positive here in NH.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *