On May 12, during Dr. Fauci’s testimony before the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), took a swipe at Dr. Fauci over his national strategy, or his one-size-fits-all approach to the coronavirus pandemic.

Senator Paul suggested to Dr. Fauci that the vast majority of Americans likely have immunity already. Dr. Rand Paul used Sweden as an example of a nation that decided to allow the virus to run its course while allowing the most vulnerable citizens to remain in isolation and how their decision to leave their economy and schools open, worked. “The mortality rate in Sweden,” Paul explained, is less than the other countries surrounding them who shut down their schools and economies, adding that we need to observe the results of Sweden with “an open mind.”

Senator Paul blasted Dr. Fauci, “As much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end-all. I don’t think that you’re the one person that gets to make a decision. We can listen to your advice, but there are people on the other side saying there’s not going to be a surge, and that we can safely open up the economy and the facts will bear this out. But if we keep kids out of school for another year—what’s gonna happen is the poor and underprivileged kids who don’t have a parent that are able to teach them at home are not gonna learn for a full year, and I think we oughta look at the Swedish model and we oughta look at getting our kids back to school in the fall.”

Trending: Rioters Videotaped Him Bleeding Out And Shared It On Facebook Live…Life Of Retired St. Louis Police Captain Murdered By Looters Didn’t Matter

This morning, Senator Paul blasted Dr. Fauci for his reckless misrepresentation of the coronavirus to Americans, tweeting:

Paging Dr. Fauci: scientific evidence shows mortality rate for coronavirus approximates the annual flu for people under 60 #freeourpeople #openeconomynow

Senator Rand Paul’s comments were in reference to a Conservative Review article by Daniel Horowitz: One chart exposes the lie behind universal lockdowns

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz writes – What is the true infection fatality rate of COVID-19, broken down by age and health status? This is a simple question for which the CDC should have a clear answer by now, accompanied by a readable chart – a chart showing everyone’s demographic risk assessment so that we can better target our infection mitigation efforts. Yet it’s the one thing our government hasn’t done. Wonder why?

Take a look at this chart (which I translated into English using Google Translate) prepared by the Economisch Statistische Berichten (ESB), a Dutch economics magazine, quantifying the infection fatality rate for the Dutch population-based on age bracket. The data were calculated from an antibody test of 4,000 blood donors conducted by Dutch blood bank Sanquin to see how many have been infected for the purpose of donating blood plasma to those currently suffering from the virus. The data were presented to the Dutch House of Representatives in mid-April by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).

 

Based on this serology test, they were able to determine that 3% of the population (at the time) were infected and were, therefore, able to divide the numerator of those who died of COVID-19 by the extrapolated denominator of those who were likely infected and break out the infection fatality rate by age group.

Study this chart for a few minutes and take in all the data – from the asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic rates to the hospital and fatality rates divided by age. You have to get to the 50-59 age group just to reach a 0.1% fatality rate, the level often cited as the overall death rate for the seasonal flu. Those are all lower odds than an individual has of dying in a giving year of any cause and in the case of an average 50-year-old, five times lower.

They didn’t test kids under 20, but their fatality rate is likely near zero.

While the Netherlands is an entirely different country, it has actually experienced a 30% higher death rate per capita than America. So the numbers are likely not any higher here for those under 70, especially because the macro serology tests showing a 0.2% fatality rate (but grossly distorted by the death rate of those over 80), as well as what we are seeing in prisons and ships in younger populations, seems to harmonize with this data. A brand-new study from France also shows very similar estimates of fatality rates, at least for those under 60.

Moreover, several weeks later, another research group in the Netherlands did a second serology test that broke down even more groups and came up with almost identical results:

As you can see, the death rate doesn’t even climb above .1% until you reach over 70, with a steep and dangerous growth of risk over 75 and 80. However, it’s important to remember that even those death rates might need to be cut in half for those outside nursing homes, given that half the deaths in most countries are in senior care facilities.

Why has our government not put out a similar chart? How many Americans even know that children have near-zero threat and anyone under 60 has next to no risk of dying from the virus? Even those between 60 and 69 are at much lower risk than anything the government has suggested and that the level of panic indicates. The World Health Organization wrongly pegged the overall death rate for all ages at 3.4% on average. This simple fact makes a world of difference both to our targeted response to the virus and also to the degree of panic that should and should not be infused into society so as not to keep people away from hospitals when they are experiencing other potentially dangerous medical conditions.

In most states, well over 90% of those who died of COVID-19 had serious underlying conditions. But it’s even more than that. We now know that geography played a large role. 54% of all U.S. deaths were in the 100 counties in or within 100 miles of NYC.

For the entire Conservative Review article, go HERE.

You can listen to Daniel Horowitz discuss his findings in a Conservative Review podcast here:

6,331SHARES

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.