Four Million Dead In The Raging Pandemic!

Four Million Dead In The Raging Pandemic!

The WHO itself, the unquestionable unimpeachable unerring medical authority, tells us that as many as four million died in the pandemic.

Not one million. Not two million. No, sir, not even three million. But four full million souls perished from the earth in the pandemic!

This happened not just once. This happened, dear readers, but it happened twice since 1957.

Regular readers will recall this, but given I’ve been getting shocked questions about flu being deadlier than coronadoom, I thought it well to remind us that flu was deadlier than the coronadoom. Many times.

Coronadoom is the only disease that sparked a global unceasing panic, though.

The closet competition to the size of the panic was the 1918 Spanish flu, which the WHO says killed 20-50 million (stats from page 19 of this pdf). There were about 1.8 billion souls alive in 1918, which makes the kill rate of Spanish flu of about 1 to 2.8%—of the entire world.

It’s true that some locales in the States, and elsewhere in the world, joined the Cult of the Mask, but it wasn’t universal, even within states. The somewhat widespread use of masks then prompted the first paper on the uselessness of masks in 1919 (referenced in this post). All forgotten now.

Now the coronadoom has killed just under, the most generous estimates say, 1.6 million. So far. The winter is just beginning in the more populous northern hemisphere, so this number will increase. Let’s give the bug the benefit of the doubt and say 2 million by summer, which will mark, it is likely, the official end of the panic.

There are 7.8 billion of us now, so that doom will score about 0.0026%.

This is way behind Spanish flu, which did 76 times better, but then nobody except model-wielding academics like Neil Ferguson thought the doom would compete toe-to-toe with Spanish flu.

Everybody remembers the Asian flu of 1957-1958, which WHO says gave work to undertakers to the tune of 1-4 million sales. In 1958 there were 2.9 billion souls. That gives a score of 0.03 to 0.1%. That’s 3.3 times better than the doom; or, a 330% increase.

The feature everybody recalls best about the Asian flu was the worldwide panic. The entire US then, as now, was locked down. Many thrown out of work, businesses permanently shuttered. Masks mandates everywhere. People wearing gloves, facemasks, screaming at those who didn’t.

And, of course, the biggie: The global declaration that everybody must have the flu vaccine else they could not buy or sell—or work or go outside or mingle with others. Nobody was forced to take the vaccine. It was a free choice. Freedom was just as important then as now.

The story repeated a decade later, which the WHO estimates also killed 1-4 million souls. That’s only 2.8 times better than the doom—but that’s inflation for you. Devalues everything.

Here’s how the Asian flu started, according to Wiki. See if you’ve heard this before:

The first cases were reported in Guizhou in early 1956 or early 1957, and they were reported in the neighbouring province of Yunnan before the end of February. On 17 April, The Times reported that “an influenza epidemic has affected thousands of Hong Kong residents”. By the end of the month, Singapore also experienced an outbreak of the new flu, which peaked in mid-May with 680 deaths. In Taiwan, 100,000 were affected by mid-May, and India suffered a million cases by June. In late June, the pandemic reached the United Kingdom.

By June 1957, it reached the United States, where it initially caused few infections….

It goes on in the now-familiar vein.

This underplays things, because not only did Asian and Hong Kong flu have much higher kill scores than coronadoom, they rubbed out a lot of kids. Here’s one set of estimates (from this paper):

Don’t worry if you don’t understand the details, but compare the size of the numbers for 0-4 year olds with 65+ year olds. They’re worse. The doom, by contrast, isn’t able to kill anybody under 20, really. Average age of dead in the doom is about 80.

If our pre-effeminacy days it was considered a blow for a child to die by disease. That’s all changed.

The story about the panic in ’57-’58 was we in the blog trade call a joke. It wasn’t true. There was no panic. There were no lockdowns. There were no mask mandates. There were no threats to starve to death people who wouldn’t get vaccinated. And, to repeat, there were no lockdowns.

Same thing a decade later. No lockdowns.

Lots of lockdowns now. Endless panic. No perspective.

Late addition The guy who asked me the question told me to adjust for population for the number of dead in the USA for Asian flu. CDC says 116,000 dead. There were 172 million in states then, 331 million now.

That makes 223,000 Asian flu dead in 2020 numbers. CDC says 262,000 coronadoom deaths now. But those are deaths “involving” the doom, which includes those dying with and those dying from.

It also includes all those who died from government “solutions” to the coronadoom, such as shoving the sick into nursing homes (10-20K? more? dead that way), and bug-spreading lockdowns, and so on.

In any case, comparable numbers—again, with no panic.

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


  1. Dean Ericson

    Four million?! It’s six million, heretic!

  2. Bob Mounger

    My father-in-law, 95, was a WWII combat vet. He was living in the Texas state Veterans home in Bonham Tx, 75 miles outside of Dallas. They had been on total lockdown since March. They tested everybody in the place for Covid every week. We still spoke to him on the phone, & he knew who we were & aside from some confusion about dreams versus reality, seemed relatively lucid. Not surprising since he was in a bed all day.

    November 9th they called to say he had coronadoom. He died 11PM on veterans day.

    We finally got the death certificates this week. Cause of death? Alzheimers.

    Reimbursement? Liability? What game is being played this month?

  3. Misa

    The most interesting thing about these previous pandemics is that they *ended*. Nothing like a majority of the population seems to have been attacked in any one wave (perhaps 20-30% in the 2nd wave of Spanish flu?).

    Asian flu errupted in the UK, covering wide geographical area, and all sections of society in three weeks, but then petered out. Why did it stop, just when it looked set to run through the entire population? It kept coming back over the next ten years, and its final burst (the year before being displaced by HK flu) was pretty impressive for a tired old virus most people must have already encountered.

    After the small first wave of HK flu in the UK, there were claims that there *must* have been countless ‘silent infections’, and that those seeking treatment were just the tip of an iceberg. Whilst ~5% of population had been attacked over 3-4 months, 40% showed antibody increases against the new strain. That had to be why it stopped! Lots of people had had it without even knowing about it.

    Except, it came back at the end of that year, of course, attacking 3x as many in as in the first wave, (UK second wave bigger than first, opposite of USA) and that wasn’t its final visit.

    I’m not suggesting that we should be terrified of a huge wave this winter – far from it. Waves come and waves go, and with testing like this we’ll sure as hell hear about them.

    We were told that these things go exponential (scary!) until enough people have been infected, yet this doesn’t seem to explain previous pandemics. If we understood why epidemics end, as they always do, we might be better placed to calm the panic merchants.

  4. Dean Ericson

    ”…which will mark, it is likely, the official end of the panic.”

    The end of the panic?! — ha!HahAa!!HaahaAhaha!—oOh!-uHhhh-ah-ah-ah— oh, man, you’re slayin’ me.


  5. Dean Ericson

    Thank you Dr. Briggs for this free, safe, and effective vaccine against panic, folly, and madness. Every time I leave your clinic I feel like a new man. Now, what have you got for hair loss?

  6. Dean Ericson

    Fredo, I watched that vid — excellent. God bless those courageous men and women for speaking out against the criminal covid crazies.

  7. Dean Ericson

    Miss: ”…we might be better placed to calm the panic merchants.”

    The way to calm the panic merchants is to put them under lockdown. Permanently.

  8. Yawrate


    Thanks for the video link.

  9. bloughlin

    I watched a little of the video. It is rife with errors. There is in fact a virus that has been identified. We are in fact experiencing excess deaths. Over the last 10 years, the average increase in deaths from one calendar year to the next is 1.16%, with a high of 3.28% (2015) and a low of 0.52% (2019). Based upon total deaths this year as of 9/30, we can project a total increase for 2020 of 3.56% (that’s up about 100,000 deaths from 2019). So yes there is an unusually large increase in the number of deaths. But it isn’t enough to panic over. Combatting hysteria is hard enough when you get your facts straight.

  10. Matt

    Briggs, you forgot to account for the fact there are many more older people now than before. I think we have something like 12x more people over 70 than there were in 1957 and 5x more over 90, for instance (or some such, I can go back through my files and find the numbers, but one can check through census data).

    So, 1957’s numbers were even worse!!!

  11. matt

    (I think I mean that proportionally…)

  12. Rudolph Harrier

    The UMN models used to justify the Minnesota lockdown, and which likely will be used again to justify extending the current lockdown through Christmas, predicted 12,903 deaths in the absolute best case scenario by March, though practically all the deaths occurred before January. We are currently sitting at about 4,200 “attributed” deaths (with a median age of death above 85 years old).

    If the models were to be trusted at all this would be seen as unbelievably low. After all, I am reading from the bottom of the confidence interval of a scenario where more “mitigation efforts” were taken than what actually happened (original lockdown extended for longer, and even more testing than the insane amount we have now with much more accurate tests). And we still are on course to not even get half the deaths predicted. No scenario exactly matched what happened, but the closest ones actually predicted 25k-29k deaths, meaning that our low numbers are all the more miraculous.

    But no, the common conclusion is that the models were still accurate AND that our numbers are way too high. Have even heard health officials say that the current situation is “worse than they could have possibly imagined” while their models very clearly imagined a worse scenario back in May.

  13. Chad Jessup

    Dean Erickson – That man is looking for justice! He got it when he flipped up the fellow’s hat! I’d also say to the dude that you’re wearing a mask, so what is your problem!!!!

  14. Dale

    bloughlin, 3.56% increase is MUCH lower than I‘ve seen elsewhere. How did you calculate that ?

  15. Joao Martins


    Do you remember the calamity of hospitalizations and deaths in 1969 during the “Hong Kong Flu”, resulting from those irresponsible young people half naked and camped in New York during the Woodstock festival?

  16. According to CDC data, C19 is the cure for heart disease, cancer, strokes, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, flu, pneumonia, and more.
    Also, the best way to cut through the controversy on overall mortality is to ask believers what age category is the primary target.
    They will say the elderly.
    You then show them the chart found here and ask why there have not been increased deaths in the category. l

  17. Rudolph Harrier

    Also relevant from local reporting:

    “While the lawsuit plays down the risk of the coronavirus to younger people, two Minnesotans in their 20s were among the 89 new deaths from COVID-19 reported by the Minnesota Department of Health on Thursday, an unusual development in a pandemic that has mostly claims the lives of the elderly. The young victims were from Ramsey and Rice counties. Minnesota has recorded only eight fatalities among people in their 20s, and none in their teens, out of a total of 4,198 of all ages since the pandemic began. However, teens and young adults make up a large share of the state’s 367,218 total cases.”

    Note the word “while” and “plays down”. The article writer clearly wants us to believe that teenagers are at great risk. But the data that he cites immediately after this only confirms that it really isn’t a great risk. Note also the word “however” in the last sentence, as if the large number of “cases” in the young range mean that the disease is still deadly to them. In fact it means the exact opposite, since it shows that there have been practically no deaths in that age range despite the large number of “cases” there. Indeed, the ratio of deaths to infections in the teenage/twentysomething demographic being discussed is .006%, which is probably lower than the true infection fatality rate there due to asymptotic carriers.

  18. Rudolph Harrier

    Correction: is probably higher than the true IFR (for that age group)

  19. Brad Tittle

    “A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.” Page 48 “Vaccine Effectiveness”

    Compare that to the next subject “Known Risks”

  20. Daniel Iglesias

    Very interesting. Thank you.
    A correction: 2 million / 7.8 billion = 0,026%, not 0,0026%.

Leave a Reply

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