Can Politicians Prove Their COVID-19 Lockdown Was Justified?

A PJ Media report presents the case of University of Waterloo doctoral candidate in epidemiology, Ronald B. Brown, who concluded that there was a “math error” injected into the early COVID-19 death models that caused them to overestimate projected mortality totals. This fact could impact the political justification of all COVID-19 policy because the data’s legitimacy is inversely proportional to the size of the “math error”. Put another way, information’s decision-making value falls as its level of error grows, and vice versa. Bad data equals bad decisions.

Mr. Brown determined that the mortality rate calculations were in error by a factor of 10, or 1000%, due to the conflation of case fatality rate (CFR) with an infection fatality rate (IFR) estimated to be ten times as large. A severe error, but not without issues. First, is the error large enough to delegitimize COVID-19 lockdown decisions, and, more importantly, how accurate is the estimated “math error”? Considering the incalculable financial, psychological, and spiritual damage already done to millions, plus new, possibly mistaken, concerns over a rise in COVID-19 cases, citizens deserve to know if the data leaders use is accurate and reliable enough to justify further political action.

Calculating Actual COVID-19 Delusion Factors

As terrible as Brown’s conflation error is, it remains an estimate because the CFR and IFR numbers were themselves, estimates. Obviously, early models were data-challenged and had no choice but to produce ridiculous projections. Remember, these erroneous results were crucial factors in the political decision-making process and as COVID-19 policy was brutal, it’s fair to ask for proper justification. Thankfully, we can calculate a more realistic COVID-19 delusion factor by comparing the actual number of COVID-19 deaths with the model projections used to drive policy choices. The key to getting an accurate understanding of whether political action was justified or not requires accurate COVID-19 death counts and knowing the projected death numbers political leaders relied on.

---

For example, this early April CBC article reported Ontario provincial health experts expected COVID-19 to kill between 3,000 and 15,000 Ontarians. (Oddly, these estimates are strangely referred to as “revelations”.) It’s possible these numbers influenced Ontario Premier Doug Ford, so, how accurate would they have been? As of September 15, 2020, worldometers showed Canada’s COVID-19 death total at 9,179. Extrapolating based on population; Ontario’s 15,000 figure is equivalent to 38,744 Canadian deaths. This represents a COVID-19 delusion factor (projection/actual) of 4.22, or, a substantial 422%. In that same article, however, they justify drastic political action on the idea that it prevented Ontario’s COVID-19 death toll from hitting 100,000. This would equate to 258,294 Canadians, which explodes the political delusion factor to 28, or 2800%. The argument that totalitarian action lowered the number of deaths is, thanks to RealClimateScience, [ ] proven false by looking at Sweden’s non-lockdown experience.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Some Saskatchewan projections were even worse. This CBC article suggested up to 15,000 could die in the sparsely populated province, which equates to a Canadian total of 479,036 COVID-19 deaths. The delusion factor here is a nerve wracking 52, or 5228%. Scary enough, but this article also suggested Saskatchewan was still unprepared to combat the virus and that the health system would be overwhelmed even using “conservative” assumptions. Did that happen? The Saskatchewan government noted that “more accurate modelling is anticipated in the coming days” and that “Even if there was a 50 percent error rate, we still need to do this.” So, an admittance they’re simply guessing and, chillingly, the belief it’s acceptable to make life-altering decisions on data that is wrong half the time. This is panic, not logic, speaking. The next number comes from Wikipedia where they report a worst-case scenario whereby 300,000 Ontarians would fall to the COVID-19 reaper. The worst-case delusion factor here is stroke inducing, 85, or 8500%. Was Premier Ford influenced by worst-case models? His actions suggest the possibility. The following graph, also found in the RealClimateScience video linked above, provides a clear view of the difference between actuals and model projections. Does it make sense to base decisions on wildly incorrect projections because that is exactly what political leadership has done and wish to continue.

---

“Number of Cases” is another “conflation” deceit

The current concern, expressed by the media and certain political leaders, is the rising “number of cases”. However, missing from that conversation is the fact that COVID-19 has lost its Death Punch, meaning there is no direct correlation between COVID-19 cases and deaths, as if viruses have a 
“life cycle” of their own. Ask yourself how dangerous COVID-19 still is after reviewing this chart showing new deaths per day in Canada. COVID-19’s death rate has flatlined! This same chart shape can be found the world over, including in the UK, Italy, France, Belgium, and Sweden, who didn’t lock down.

---

---

Can Canadians Handle The COVID-19 Truth?

Ask yourself how many Canadians would be convinced of the need to mask up or lock down if they understood that number of cases does not equate to number of deaths. Now, ask yourself why the media and premiers would insist on conflating the two. We can conclude the following.

1. Poor models led to delusional political choices and disastrous consequences.
2. The focus on “cases” rather than deaths is a deliberate decision shared by the media and most politicians.
3. Conflation is a deceitful tactic whose use is to JUSTIFY, not prove the need for, government action both past and present.
4. The horrific consequences of COVID-19 political policy are both known, and by pushing deceit, desired by the media and political leaders. Sad, but true.

We know they messed up and they know they messed up, HUGE! They just don’t want you to know they know, which allows them to avoid accountability and continue down their illegitimate course. Both “number of cases” and the flatlined death rate are “true”. However, only one represents truth and common sense says it isn’t the position backed by contemptuous deceit. The probability that Elvis is alive is as great as the probability the COVID-19 lockdown is legitimate Quebec Premier Francois Legault mocked mask deniers by equating them to conspiracy theorists who believe Elvis still roams Graceland. Considering how delusional Saskatchewan and Ontario projections were, and how misleading it is to focus on “cases”, the probability that COVID-19 justifications were predicated on accurate projections is ZERO. Elvis will remain alive and in the building until politicians legitimize their actions by unmasking their delusional data.

Prediction

The unmasking of provincial COVID-19 delusions will show a direct relationship between the scale of the delusion and the severity of political restrictions that followed.