Fauci-Birx climate models?

Honest, evidence-based climate models could avoid trillions of dollars in policy blunders

Paul Driessen and David R. Legates

President Trump and his Coronavirus Task Force presented some frightening numbers during their March 31 White House briefing. Based on now 2-week-old data and models, as many as 100,000 Americans at the models’ low end, to 2.2 million at their high end, could die from the fast-spreading virus, they said.

However, the President, Vice President Pence, and Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx hastened to add, those high-end numbers are based on computer models. And they are “unlikely” if Americans keep doing what they are doing now to contain, mitigate and treat the virus. Although that worst-case scenario “is possible,” it is “unlikely if we do the kinds of things that we’re essentially outlining right now.”

On March 31, Dr. Fauci said, the computer models were saying that, even with full mitigation, it is “likely” that America could still suffer at least 100,000 deaths. But he then added a very important point:

“The question is, are the models really telling us what’s going on? When someone creates a model, they put in various assumptions. And the models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions you put into them. As we get more data, as the weeks go by, that might change. We feed the data back into the models and relook at the models.” The data can change the assumptions – and thus the models’ forecasts.

“If we have more data like the NY-NJ metro area, the numbers could go up,” Dr. Birx added. But if the numbers coming in are more like Washington or California, which reacted early and kept their infection and death rates down – then the models would likely show lower numbers. “We’re trying to prevent that logarithmic increase in New Orleans and Detroit and Chicago – trying to make sure those cities work more like California than like the New York metro area.” That seems to be happening, for the most part.

If death rates from corona are misattributed or inflated, if other model assumptions should now change, if azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine and other treatments, and people’s immunities are reducing infections – then business shutdowns and stay-home orders could (and should) end earlier, and we can go back to work and life, rebuild America’s and the world’s economies … and avoid different disasters, like these:

Millions of businesses that never reopen. Tens of millions of workers with no paychecks. Tens of trillions of dollars vanished from our economy. Millions of families with lost homes and savings. Millions of cases of depression, stroke, heart attack, domestic violence, suicide, murder-suicide, and early death due to depression, obesity and alcoholism, due to unemployment, foreclosure and destroyed dreams.

In other words, numerous deaths because of actions taken to prevent infections and deaths from COVID.

It is vital that they recheck the models and assumptions – and distinguish between COVID-19 deaths actually due to the virus … and not just associated with or compounded by it, but primarily due to age, obesity, pneumonia or other issues. We can’t afford a cure that’s worse than the disease – or a prolonged and deadly national economic shutdown that could have been shortened by updated and corrected models.

Now just imagine: What if we could have that same honest, science-based approach to climate models?

What if the White House, EPA, Congress, UN, EU and IPCC acknowledged that climate models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions built into them? What if – as the months and years went by and we got more real-world temperature, sea level and extreme weather data – we used that information to honestly refine the models? Would the assumptions and therefore the forecasts change dramatically?

What if we use real science to help us understand Earth’s changing climate and weather? And base energy and other policies on real science that honestly examines manmade and natural influences on climate?

Many climate modelers claim we face existential manmade climate cataclysms caused by our use of fossil fuels. They use models to justify calls to banish fossil fuels that provide 80% of US and global energy; close down countless industries, companies and jobs; totally upend our economy; give trillions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel replacement companies; and drastically curtail our travel and lifestyles.

Shouldn’t we demand that these models be verified against real-world evidence? Natural forces have caused climate changes and extreme weather events throughout history. What proof is there that what we see today is due to fossil fuel emissions, and not to those same natural forces? We certainly don’t want energy “solutions” that don’t work and are far worse than the supposed manmade climate and weather ‘virus.’

And we have the climate data. We’ve got years of data. The data show the models don’t match reality.

Model-predicted temperatures are more than 0.5 degrees F above actual satellite-measured average global temperatures – and “highest ever” records are mere hundredths of a degree above previous records from 50 to 80 years ago. Actual hurricane, tornado, sea level, flood, drought, and other historic records show no unprecedented trends or changes, no looming crisis, no evidence that humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate and weather in the real world outside the modelers’ labs.

Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent observations or findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules or laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

Real scientists don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world data, evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t tweak their models after comparing predictions to actual subsequent observations, to make it look like the models “got it right.” They don’t “lose” or hide data and computer codes, restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who asks inconvenient questions or criticizes their claims or models. Climate modelers have done all of this – and more.

Put bluntly, what climate modelers are essentially saying is this: We don’t need data; we have models. If real world observations don’t conform to our computer model predictions, the real world must be wrong.

Climate models have always overstated the warming. But even though modelers have admitted that their models are “tuned” – revised after the fact to make it look like they predicted temperatures accurately – the modelers have made no attempt to change the climate sensitivity to match reality. Why not? 

They know disaster scenarios sell. Disaster forecasts keep them employed, swimming in research money – and empowered to tell legislators and regulators that humanity must we take immediate, draconian action to eliminate all fossil fuel use – the economic, human and environmental consequences be damned. And they probably will never admit their mistakes or duplicity, much less be held accountable.

“Wash your hands! You could save millions of lives!”  has far more impact than “You could save your own life, your kids’ lives, dozens of lives.” When it comes to climate change, you’re saving the planet.

With Mann-made climate change, we are always shown the worst-case scenario: RCP 8.5, the “business-as-usual” … ten times more coal use in 2100 than now … “total disaster.” Alarmist climatologists know their scenario has maybe a 0.1% likelihood, and assumes no new energy technologies over the next 80 years. But energy technologies have evolved incredibly over the last 80 years – since 1940, the onset of World War II! Who could possibly think technologies won’t change at least as much going forward?

Disaster scenarios are promoted because most people don’t know any better – and voters and citizens won’t accept extreme measures and sacrifices unless they are presented with extreme disaster scenarios.

The Fauci-Birx team is trying to do science-based modeling for the ChiCom-WHO coronavirus – feeding updated data into their models. Forecasts for infections and deaths are down significantly. Thankfully.

So now we must demand honest, factual, evidence-based climate model as well. No more alarmists and charlatans setting climate and energy policy. Our economy, livelihoods, lives and liberties are too vital.

The fact is, models are also only as good as the number of variables they can handle, and the data quality for every variable. There is no way models can possibly factor in the hundreds of infection, treatment, death and other variables associated with COVID – and Earth’s climate is vastly more complex. Simply put, models play a role but should never be a primary driving force in setting important public policies.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. David R. Legates is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Garrett
April 13, 2020 6:18 am


Charles Higley
Reply to  John Garrett
April 13, 2020 7:42 am

One of the effects of this shutdown, strict adherence to staying at home, and making it difficult to get supplies, including food, is that, over a month or two, some people are going to lose their nutritional balance.Lack of exercise and change in diet is going to have wide-ranging effects as well.

Vitamins A and D and zinc levels are important for the immune system and resistance to disease.

Reply to  Charles Higley
April 13, 2020 9:47 am

On the other hand I’d think that many people who might pick up fast food on the way home from a busy day at work might now be able to take more time to shop for healthier food they’re preparing at home.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Tomsa
April 13, 2020 11:52 am

The why is all the Raman noodles, Mac and Cheese, and canned pasta is all out of stock at the grocery store? I think maybe people are eating worse, not better.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Paul Penrose
April 13, 2020 7:21 pm

I agree, partly due to the lockdown but for me I recently moved. I just started eating fresh fruit just this w/e its been almost 2 months with out it.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Charles Higley
April 13, 2020 10:34 am

Well, I heard another effect last week – here in Portland about one person a day is typically shot. Since the shelter in place order, it’s been seventeen a day.

And it isn’t even summer-time yet.

Jeremiah Puckett
Reply to  Joel Snider
April 13, 2020 1:47 pm

On a positive note, abortion clinics are closed in some areas of the country. The USA kills about 3000 voiceless babies a day. Many now have a chance!!

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
April 13, 2020 4:05 pm

I heard that was considered a vital service.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
April 14, 2020 2:37 am

Up until recently, abortions were illegal here in Ireland. Now it’s very liberal. During this lockdown, the idiots in charge here, have advised that a woman/girl seeking an abortion, should arrange the whole procedure over the phone. They can take instruction over the phone (obviously not surgical) and abort their baby, with no supervision.

Reply to  Charles Higley
April 13, 2020 1:53 pm

“One of the effects of this shutdown,…”
The effect of politicans saying the shutdown is going to go on would months {and months} is not “good”.
But there is a lot stupid politicans which people have stupidly elected.
Though if like drama queens representing you, you got what you wanted.

One could say in the US, we have already flatten the curve.
So, we have gotten the underpants and we are at step two:
“Collect underpants. Step 2. ? Step 3. PROFIT.”

So, after flattening the curve, one could say time is helpful, but too much time is a problem.
An analogy is after you have huge victory winning a battle, what you do? Well, you could say something like this occurred in Gulf war II.
A lot focus was on winning the battle, and there some thought about step two. Of course that might be terrifying analogy.
But analogies are overrated. And roughly all I am saying is it’s problem.
One thing I want is to start the Baseball season, now.
And mainly I want “baseball management” to solve the problem of how to do this as quickly as possible. Of course it will involve the baseball players. I imagine the baseball players want to play baseball. If they don’t, I don’t want to watch baseball ever, again. But I imagine they do want to play baseball and it’s only problem is “baseball management” can’t manage very well. Which is fine, I never had a lot faith in their managing skills.
Which bring me to next thing, we need to start the daycare, which we call “public school”.
Now, I would guess the Kids actually want to go to school and it’s slightly possible the schools management want to start school. And teachers might imagine their teaching does something important.
Though I tend to think watching baseball is less of waste of time.
Why not look at idea of starting alternative schooling- it seems like a good time to push, school choice.
Could allow the public schools to sideline themselves and allow alternative day care?

And why blame government? When you can blame baseball. Really, does baseball have any good excuse?

old white guy
Reply to  John Garrett
April 13, 2020 8:53 am

The numbers are already being misattributed and inflated. It is by design and instruction. Can’t have a pandemic fall short of expectations when you screw up an entire country.

Curious George
Reply to  old white guy
April 13, 2020 9:44 am

I love your superbly informed and documented opinions 🙂

Reply to  John Garrett
April 13, 2020 9:37 am

It’s blasphemy to criticize climate models & modelers. The Queen of Charts says “Off w/the blasphemer’s heads!”

April 13, 2020 6:19 am

“We’re trying to prevent that logarithmic increase in New Orleans and Detroit and Chicago –”

When someone says logarithmic instead of exponential, you quietly usher them out of the door and give them some colour pencils to play with.

We have enough birx already.

What the word for people ending up resembling what their name means?

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 6:45 am

I noticed that too, It irritates the hell out of me every time I hear her say that, How can anyone trust the models of someone who doesn’t know the difference between logarithmic and exponential?

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Alan McIntire
April 13, 2020 7:08 am

they are not her models

Jeffery P
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 13, 2020 8:03 am

Mosh, you’re right, those aren’t Fauci’s or Birx’s models.

But surely they reviewed the models and the data? Asked questions about the model’s assumptions and the input (data)?

Reply to  Jeffery P
April 13, 2020 4:31 pm


Reply to  Jeffery P
April 15, 2020 12:12 am

The truth is Fauci and Brix trusted the model programmers to make informed assumptions. The worse case assumptions scenario were also used to avoid understating the problem. If it was not scary then people wouldn’t adjust their behavior. In spite of the scary predictions the over confident population in New Jersey and NYC didn’t think the problem was any worse than the flu.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 13, 2020 8:33 am

Whether or not they are “her models” if she has no idea what she is talking about why is she even in the room ?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 11:31 am

When I heard her say it, I interpreted it as getting away from a line on a logarithmically-scaled chart such as Willis has been presenting. (Where a line on a log chart is exponential growth). Maybe I’m giving her more benefit of the doubt than warranted. She’s been a doctor, research scientist, and an ambassador. In my mind she’s a smart cookie and gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Alan McIntire
April 13, 2020 7:30 am

The data most emphatically says second order.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
April 13, 2020 1:37 pm

Second order what ? What are you saying? Second order ODE ?

Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 7:05 am

Hu hu !

Walt D.
Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 7:13 am


Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 8:18 am

Nominative determination

Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 9:56 am

Dr. Birx added. But if the numbers coming in are more like Washington or California, which reacted early and kept their infection and death rates down – then the models would likely show lower numbers.

NY:190,288 cases, 9,385 deaths
CA: 23,324 cases, 682 deaths
NY: 8x the number of cases … 13x the number of deaths as CA

“The Narrative” insists This MASSIVE difference is because … CA “shut down” everything 4 days earlier than NY. 4 days. Yet the myth persists, that because CA “reacted quicker” that the State radically reduced the number of ChiCom-19 cases and deaths. Never have I heard such shallow thinking, and illogic. And this illogical MYTH persists … and has become universally accepted as “truth”. Note that the draconian, totalitarian, “shut in” orders came AFTER a long period of “softer” shut in orders.

What is the REAL logical reason CA has so many fewer cases and deaths from this HIGHLY COMMUNICABLE virus? ‘Mass Transit’. The vast majority of CA citizens DO NOT take mass transit. The vast majority of NY citizens DO take mass transit. Have you ever been on the NY subway? I have. It’s a human beehive. But that not only doesn’t fit the ‘narrative’ … it strongly argues against one of the essential tenets of CAGW – that we must all huddle together in increasingly dense population centers.

But why does the myth persist? The myth that 4-days “quicker action” made all the difference? Because that fits another narrative … the most important narrative … “Orange Man Bad” “Orange Man didn’t act FAST enough”. That Narrative even ends up on the Drudge Report in gigantic RED letters! That the NYT said someone heard someone say that Bad Orange Man ignored Scientists like Birx and Fauxci. My advice? Use your common sense. It right far more often than “official” narratives.

Reply to  Kenji
April 13, 2020 11:03 am

IMHO the major difference is population density.
NYC: 66,940 people per square mile
LA: 7,544 people per square mile

At almost 9 times the density one might assume that it has a significant factor on transmission of a communicable disease. Even more so for one that seems to be primarily transmitted by direct contact and near-time indirect contact.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
April 13, 2020 11:31 am

Indeed. But remember! Suburban sprawl is … baaaaaaad mmmkay?

Reply to  Kenji
April 13, 2020 11:25 am

+ 100 **********
Have they not seen the subway riders even today? Worse since there are fewer riders ther are fewer cars resulting in the same crowding. Brainless.

Reply to  Uzurbrain
April 13, 2020 11:30 am

The subway cars are empty now …


and they make quite lovely bedrooms (and bathrooms) for the homeless.

Reply to  Uzurbrain
April 13, 2020 1:46 pm

Same problem in London.

Reply to  Kenji
April 15, 2020 12:21 am

The NYC people cannot practice social distancing with their population density. One wise person said the elevators were being used by only two people at a time. That was supposed to be good enough. I cannot believe the elevators were wiped down with disinfectant after each pair rode one. The social distancing was and is impossible with so many humans crammed together.

Ian E
Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 10:01 am

Nomen est omen!

Johnny Cuyana
Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 10:26 am

Greg, further to this impression of credibility … Dr. Birx is the same “EXPERT” who I am quite sure, on at least two occasions, has confused the words “hypothetical” and “theoretical”.

Interchanging these two words, for a “lay-person” is sufferable; however, FOR A PURPORTED EXPERT, IT IS NOT; where the respective use of these words has night-and-day differences in meaning … and such differences, by the expert, must be understood and communicated clearly. Experts must do better.

In short: theoretical is something which is an established and accepted practice because it has been time-tested, and, where, through broad application [experimentation] the particular notion has not been disproved; where, as a result, in general, a theoretical notion is something which can be “taken to the bank”. OTOH, very distinctly, hypothetical is something which has not necessarily been, through thorough testing, established and accepted by the greater academy; where, it is still considered to be in the experimental stage; where it remains a notion which could be one way or the other.

So, for the “EXPERT” Dr. Birx, who, supposedly, spends a good deal of time digesting higher level technical investigations, reports and etc., there should be absolutely no misunderstanding of reading and using these two words. Her misuse of these words really does give me pause.

PS: in view of the fact that all of these good people are under a lot of pressure to not make a single mis-step, I wish nothing but the best for Dr. Birx, all of the experts, and the entire administration, and, of course, we do not exist in a perfect world … especially a perfect grammatical world — Lord, strike me down for my many a faus pax — however, if they all want to convey a bit more credibility, I, for my one vote, suggest that they try a little bit harder.

Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
April 13, 2020 10:49 am

Well … to be fair … Dr. Birx is, well … old. I think she’s just about as old as a confused Joe Biden, who sometimes has difficulty with words and sentences.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
April 13, 2020 11:45 am

Come on guys. Is it also possible that she’s aware that the average listener may not understand the word hypothetical and chooses an imperfect synonym to be better understood? All she wants to convey there is that something is speculative.

Sheesh why the ultra-critical treatment?

John in Oz
Reply to  Rich Davis
April 13, 2020 5:35 pm

She is speaking to ALL listeners, not only to your hypothetical ‘average’ listener.

To be better understood, use the correct terms without any assumptions that a ‘better’ word will impart ‘better’ information. Using the wrong word creates confusion (as is shown in this blog item) when clarity is required.

E.g. – look at the time and effort wasted by all contributors to this blog merely discussing which word is the correct one. Maybe one of us could have cured cancer rather than wasting time discussing word use.

Steve Richards
April 13, 2020 6:23 am

Great, except for the very last part!

“Simply put, models play a role but should never be a primary driving force in setting important public policies”

So we do nothing for, what, 3 weeks until we have some data?

John B
Reply to  Steve Richards
April 13, 2020 7:31 am

No we burn the witches and then check if we were right.

Reply to  John B
April 13, 2020 7:49 am

I forgot, do their ashes float or sink?

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Steve Richards
April 13, 2020 7:41 am

thats a strawman … we did have data a month ago about the at risk cohort … we could have truely locked down the at risk and the death count would be a fraction of what it is today …
nobody says do nothing …
your cure is turning out to be worse than the disease and everyone knew what the lock downs would do to the economy and thus the longer term health consequences (that has been studied … not modeled studied with real data) …
but the wise ones decided the math of lives saved vs lives lost was in favor of lives saved …

and the lives saved was based on cooked books and flawed models … IMHO ..

after a week they knew the models might be flawed …

after 2 weeks they really knew the models where flawed …’

yet they have not revised their lockdown orders … in many cases they have doubled down …

Reply to  The Dark Lord
April 13, 2020 10:57 am

And why do the flawed models persist? Even as the REAL numbers started coming in (less fearsome than the projections) … the ‘model’ projections continued to be broadcast over and over and over WARNING that -last week was going to become … “The WORST week in human history!!!!!” Hint: it wasn’t.

You have to wonder WHO has so much invested in CRISIS!!!! … ? Oh? Wait! That question just made me into a “conspiracy theorist” … another phrase used to control the narrative

Charles Higley
Reply to  Steve Richards
April 13, 2020 7:52 am

One of the effects of this shutdown, strict adherence to staying at home, and making it difficult to get supplies, including food, is that, over a month or two, some people are going to lose their nutritional balance.Lack of exercise and change in diet is going to have wide-ranging effects as well.

Vitamins A and D and zinc levels are important for the immune system and resistance to disease.

In addition, studies of states that imposed strict restrictions and states that did little or nothing show that only closing schools had a (slight) effect on the epidemic. Other measures had no effect at all. Masks appear to be the only effective strategy by itself.

We should shelter our health compromised every flu season and carry on our lives with normal responsible habits for not transmitting viruses, distancing, wash hands, cover when sneezing or coughing,

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Charles Higley
April 13, 2020 12:07 pm

Another point: Fat people, people with heart conditions, and elderly people are less likely to be active and get out in the sunshine for exercise- leading to adverse effects on their immune systems,

Jeffery P
Reply to  Steve Richards
April 13, 2020 7:56 am

In an emergency such as this, perhaps it’s better to go with policies/rules/regulations based upon the best available information rather than wait for more. But it’s always important to take assessment of whether what we did at the beginning of the emergency is still prudent. As better information comes forward, we need to act accordingly. The example of South Korea shows lockdowns are not necessary.

That being said, it’s foolish and irresponsible to act on the outcome of models without asking questions. It’s also foolish and irresponsible to rely on one-trick pony bureaucrat experts who are only concerned with a narrow focus.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Steve Richards
April 13, 2020 9:47 am

Well, you could use common sense, rely on experts, and look at history…

April 13, 2020 6:23 am


Faux berks or real berks, we need a computer model to tell which we are dealing with.

Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 7:39 am

Actually, what we need are honest, uncompromised people who are competent and can think outside the box. Epidemiology is much, much more than just R(n) calculations and body counts. But virus-porn junkies can only focus on one thing – virus pathogenesis – while ignoring all other etiologies, e.g., environmental factors, life-style factors, iatrogenic factors, etc.

Reply to  icisil
April 13, 2020 8:46 am

Case in point.

Ex-spurts use body counts to make Corona-chan look more deadly than she really is, while ignoring the fact that air pollution contributes significantly to risk of morbidity/mortality. That is a pathogenesis based on personal choice, not virus virulence. For example, when people drive unsafely on a safe road, and crash and die, their deaths aren’t due to a dangerous road, but to their choice to drive unsafely. Likewise, when people choose to live in polluted environments, they incur a risk factor via personal choice.

We found that an increase of only 1 μg/m3 in PM2.5 is associated with a 15% increase in the COVID-19 death rate, 95% confidence interval (CI) (5%, 25%). Results are statistically significant and robust to secondary and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: A small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate, with the magnitude of increase 20 times that observed for PM2.5 and all-cause mortality.

Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States

Ed H
Reply to  icisil
April 13, 2020 10:00 am

I have seen this argument used with various phrasings a lot lately, that deaths are being over-counted. I disagree. We all die eventually, so in all cases, any measure taken of any kind that changes WHEN a person dies is either extending life or shortening life. If it shortened life, then it was the cause of the change of state of the system. Arguing about cause being the virus versus co-morbidities is an attempt to minimize the real impacts of the virus. If an 80 year old with cdiabetes was doing fine on insulin and was not expeted by their physicians to die of it anytime soon (say this month, or this quarter), but that 80 year old gets coronavirus and dies of the combination, then the coronavirus caused the shortening of the individual’s lifespan, even if the medical indication was renal failure due to inflamed kidneys (exacerbated by the coronavirus). Thus it SHOULD be counted as part of the impacts of the virus. Arguing that a person chose badly before that point and caused themself to be more vulnerable is irrelevant. Current state is what it is. Each person’s current health is what it is. Or to quote one of my favorite authors “Is is.” When the coronvirus comes along and now exacerbates a condition that shorten’s someone’s life, it was the catalyst, and therefore the cause of the shortening of life at that point in time, even if the medical diagnosis is associated with the co-morbidity.

Reply to  Ed H
April 13, 2020 11:11 am

Not including co-morbidities enhances Corona-chan’s pathogenesis, because the patient wouldn’t have died otherwise. It most cases Corona-chan is merely a co-factor, not the main cause of mortality. So not including co-morbidities exaggerates Corona-chan’s pathogenesis.

And if a diabetes patient with Corona-chan dies because ACE inhibitors increased infection severity, or because ACE inhibitor treatment was stopped when patient went into ICU causing an inflammatory immune response leading to cytokine storm and/or pulmonary microvascular thrombosis, or if diabetes patient was intubated early and treated with a high PEEP protocol that caused ARDS, then we really can’t say that Corona-chan caused the mortality, can we?

Ed Hinton
Reply to  Ed H
April 13, 2020 2:20 pm

It was still the catalyst, and therefore still should be considered an impact of the epidemic spreading. If the patient had not gotten the Coronavirus, that chain reaction wouldn’t have been triggered at that time and their life would not have been shortened.

Reply to  Ed H
April 13, 2020 2:50 pm

Same can be said for flu and the common cold.

Reply to  Ed H
April 13, 2020 6:20 pm

I have to agree with your stance on this Ed, most of us will develop one or other ‘condition’ as part the aging process. Modern medicine allows the majority of mature aged people to live a very good quality of life. If the coronavirus ends the life of a person who had a ‘managed’ condition then they died as a result of the coronavirus.

I am not ‘quite’ there yet but it is refreshing for someone to speak of mature aged people as though they still have something to contribute.

Rich Davis
Reply to  icisil
April 13, 2020 12:00 pm

Why do you call it corona-chan?
Sounds like a Japanese diminutive

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 13, 2020 1:34 pm

Sister to Ebola-chan

Corona-chan, also known as Wuhan-chan, is an anime-style anthropomorphic representation of the novel coronavirus the outbreak of which occurred in the Wuhan province of China in late 2019 and early 2020.


Reply to  icisil
April 13, 2020 2:37 pm

How did they measure such small increments in long-term exposure? Seems like more junk particulate science.

Reply to  Tim
April 13, 2020 2:52 pm

Could be, but it’s not junk science that air pollution causes respiratory illnesses and death.

Reply to  Tim
April 14, 2020 9:41 am

A local housing project in my town is being DENIED … based on it being too close to a freeway (which project isn’t in CA?) and thus being “bombarded” with fine particulate matter. Yet it is the same distance from the freeway as our local High School. Funny thing! Nobody is calling for the High School to be shut down because of fine particulate matter.

Guess what? ALL human activity causes “fine particulate matter” … even farmers dishing their fields and burning crop stubble, etc. Rural, Suuburban, and Urban.

The vast majority of our population tolerates these elevated levels quite well … as our lifespans get longer and longer and longer (when adjusted for newly arrived diseased 3rd worlders, baby mamas who drink, smoke, and don’t take prenatal vitamins … and gangbang early death).

April 13, 2020 6:27 am

It’s interesting to see similarities between the devil CO2 and cvd-19.

Both are invisible bogeymen.
Both will cause untold global suffering and damage.
Both rely on predictive computer models which keep people terrified.

And the remedy for both problems is identical: Crush the western capitalist system.

Funny about that, huh?

Reply to  Klem
April 13, 2020 7:34 am

COvid-2 CO2 COvid-2 CO2 COvid-2

There, you scared yet?

Reply to  Greg
April 13, 2020 8:57 am

CO₂VID, the movie.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Reply to  Klem
April 14, 2020 9:51 am

You forgot the GIANT swirling plastic patch “the size of Texas” in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. BUT! … when logical minds called for simple cleanup via boom sweepers … the GIANT plastic patch suddenly became … “micro plastics” … EVERYWHERE!!! Aiiieeeee!!!! Invisible microplastics … that can only be seen by “scientists” … under an electron microscope. Sorry. You can no longer ask to SEE the actual GIANT swirling plastic patch. Because you aren’t a “scientist”. What? You don’t BELIEVE in science! ? How DARE you question science! Heretic! Burn him! He questions scientists! Burn him! He must be a … Christian! Feed him to an Endangered (threatened?) Lion!

Coram Deo
April 13, 2020 6:28 am

video – 59 mins 52 secs

Reply to  Coram Deo
April 13, 2020 8:00 am

The above in at least some part represents the intersection of RFK Jr. and the Bible Belt. Why not throw in some Coast to Coast and ask whether bigfoot can get COVID-19?

Reply to  Scissor
April 13, 2020 8:31 am

I don’t think I’d have much in common with this bible thumper but that does not detract from the network of Malthusian eugenicists , Fauci , Berx and Gates, seem tied to.

Unless you have some specific reason to question the information he is presenting , I don’t think shooting the messenger is particularly relevant.

Reply to  Scissor
April 13, 2020 8:51 am

Dude, do you have the intelligence and capability to go through RFK Jr’s website and refute any of it? I challenge you.


Reply to  Scissor
April 13, 2020 9:26 am

C’mon – Bigfoot is the living model for “Social Distancing” ! ( ;>)

Get off my Forest!

Reply to  Scissor
April 13, 2020 9:42 am

Silly! We all know that’s what they’ve been doing in Area 51–cooking up Corona when not drinking it.

Javert Chip
April 13, 2020 6:29 am

Well, the problem with all of that is so-called “climate scientists” are a bunch of money-grubbing crooks.

mark from the midwest
April 13, 2020 6:34 am

Murray is now claiming that things will be a nightmare if we begin to re-open the economy. I’m surprised that anyone pays attention to him, he reminds me of Bill Nye.

The Titanic is unsinkable, can I take your order for a new steamship?

Jeffery P
Reply to  mark from the midwest
April 13, 2020 7:57 am

Murray who?

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Jeffery P
April 13, 2020 9:19 am

The guy who predicted 2.2 million U.S deaths

Jeffery P
Reply to  mark from the midwest
April 13, 2020 1:05 pm


It was incredibly irresponsible to publish that prediction without first looking into Murray’s bad track record. In essence, a grade-z researcher used crap data with a crap model and proved the first law of computing is GIGO.

Sweet Old Bob
April 13, 2020 6:38 am

It has been said that Trump has Fauci at his hip .
Does that mean Trump wears a Falci ?

April 13, 2020 6:47 am

Graph paper, a pencil, French curve, and wet finger=just as good model as these guys playing with SAS.

Curious George
Reply to  David
April 13, 2020 9:47 am

Interpolate at will. Extrapolate at your own peril.

Logic and Reason
April 13, 2020 6:50 am

Unfortunately models are no longer used as a data testing tool.
They have become the Oracle of Delphi.
And belief in the Oracle must be unquestioned, because only witches don’t believe the Oracle.
Pretty soon we end up like a Monty Python bit.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Logic and Reason
April 13, 2020 9:30 am

Good point, in my circles we generally talk about the model as a hypothesis, and confirming the model is the equivalent of accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. It’s the lack of good-faith testing, and willingness to reject the model that’s absurd. If I didn’t reject a faulty, (fawlty), model my business would be toast in six months.

April 13, 2020 6:52 am

The sad fact is that selfish people have taken control and we cannot stop their plans.

April 13, 2020 6:52 am

“They know disaster scenarios sell.”

I would argue this describes the media. Scientists, by and large, do it because of political pressure.

Mike O
April 13, 2020 6:59 am

Fortunately, the climate modelers can change the data to make sure that they match the model. It seems like a better way to do it than continually changing the model to match new data. /s (Really necessary?)

Steven Mosher
April 13, 2020 7:06 am

“However, the President, Vice President Pence, and Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx hastened to add, those high-end numbers are based on computer models. ”

you mean they are not based on time machines?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 13, 2020 10:10 am

you mean they are not based on time machines?

Yes, hence the “hastened to add” caveat.

But on the other hand, I guess since the data that’s often imputed [sic] into them is days/weeks/years old in many cases, that’s a kinda/sorta time machine wouldn’t you say?

BTW, enjoyed your comment the other day: “It’s a mosh pit – hit or be hit”


April 13, 2020 7:11 am

“A study in the Journal of Medical Virology concludes that the internationally used coronavirus test is unreliable: In addition to the already known problem of false positive results, there is also a „potentially high“ rate of false negative results, i.e. the test does not respond even in symptomatic individuals, while in other patients it does respond once and then again not. This makes it more difficult to exclude other flu-like illnesses’

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  richard
April 13, 2020 8:30 am

We’ve had a number of cases in my health region where initial negative tests were later proven false and the patient’s infected. This can, of course, lead to some otherwise avoidable exposures and risks to both patients and health providers. We should never make assumptions about the accuracy of a newly introduced test, especially when there has not been nearly enough time for validation.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
April 13, 2020 9:47 am

In my state about 5 days ago they stopped calling fatalities “COVID-19 Deaths” and helpfully provided a shaded blue box explaining they are now counting anyone who died of “likely” symptoms or possible exposure, EVEN IF NEVER TESTED, as the new definition, “COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS.” The goal posts keep moving daily. This on the official State health dept. “dashboard.” What does this tell you? No surprise this state is deep blue right down to the marrow.

Reply to  Goldrider
April 13, 2020 2:17 pm

Our total number of Covid 19 of deaths total 5 here in New Zealand and all are Covid 19 associated deaths.
All five elderly people had health issues.
3500 tests yesterday of traced and sick people yielded 18 positives or suspect cases.
Our borders are closed except for New Zealand citizens returning and they all in isolation for 14 days then tested .
The shut down is working here but our tourism and hospitality are in dire straits and a lot of businesses will go to the wall even with government support .
We are entering our 3rd week of lock down and the case numbers are steadily dropping day by day .
Our farming and fruit and vegetable sectors are still working but our logging is shut down and a also lot of industries that the government deems are non essential such as building and construction .
It looks likely that restrictions will be eased next week to allow a lot of works to recommence before our winter .

Curious George
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
April 13, 2020 9:51 am

I can supply a test kit with a guaranteed negative result. That means ZERO new infections, and we can lift all restrictions immediately. I wonder if China copied my invention already?

James F. Evans
Reply to  richard
April 13, 2020 8:54 am

Richard, you hit it out of the ballpark.


The manufacturer of the test states in their proper usage literature accompanying the test:

(paraphrase) “The test can give false positive for COVID 19 because it identifies other viruses.”

On NBC, Meet the Press, yesterday, Sunday, Mr. Todd beat the drum that testing needs to be increased, implying everybody needs to be tested. The word “testing” was repeated like a mantra, over and over.

That’s the game plan: claim we can’t even think of opening the economy until everybody is tested.

How long would that take?

Would they FORCE everybody to take the test?

And what would it show if the test is so flawed?

Something is rotten in Denmark.

Dr. Fauci, with all his inconsistent statements, foot dragging, and wildly wrong projections, STINKS to High Heaven.

Trump needs to fire Fauci, but you can only imagine how the MSM media would react (Fauci is their GOD).


Reply to  James F. Evans
April 13, 2020 9:52 am

Furthermore, you could test negative, get your Bill Gates-provided electronic ear tag proudly proclaiming same, walk in the supermarket and get infected 5 minutes later. All this “testing” means jack squat in the real world except to MAKE MONEY for whomever’s going to be making and administering the tests. Nice and useful for herding us into the appropriate chutes, however . . .

The common denominator throughout this whole “crisis” has been officialdom’s impulse to “DO SOMETHING!!!” even if it’s wrong, directly counterproductive, or not remotely based on the data.
This is what comes of teaching “feelings” over rational analytics in our academic institutions.

Reply to  Goldrider
April 15, 2020 12:51 am

I agree with you about testing.
It only shows what existed at when the persons were tested.
The benefit of testing is it gives a snapshot of the situation.
Additional tests shows if the infected population is stable or growing.,
A problem exists with false positives. Supposedly the South Koreans tested people a second time if they showed had a positive test.

Reply to  James F. Evans
April 13, 2020 12:01 pm

I hate to break it to you, but ALL medical tests are unreliable, in that all medical tests have false positives and false negatives. That doesn’t prevent us from using them, and with good reason: because if you don’t, the only alternative is to wait until everyone dies. And that test, at least, has few false positives (and the only false negatives are zombies).

So go on claiming that Fauci is wrong for trusting a test, but if you ask me he’s a voice of reason.

Reply to  mcswell
April 13, 2020 1:28 pm

lots of voices of reason-

“In a serological pilot study, German virologist Hendrick Streeck comes to the interim result that the lethality of Covid19 is at 0.37% and the mortality (based on the total population) at 0.06%. These values are about ten times lower than those of the WHO and about five times lower than those of Johns Hopkins University’

Antero Ollila
April 13, 2020 7:12 am

In COVID-19 case I do not trust in models because we have not enough measurement-based data. The only reliable data is the number of deaths and the population of each country. Therefore I would use empirical cumulative death rates starting from the first death case. In this way, each country has been normalized to the same scale as Willis Eschenbach has done on your COVID-19 page.

Just looking at the curves of western countries, anyone can see that they have the same kind of death rate development. Well, almost all of them. It looks like the majority of countries will end up in the total death toll of about 350 hundred per million people like Italy or Spain or France. It means about 110 000 deaths in the USA.

Reply to  Antero Ollila
April 13, 2020 8:08 am

The problem with your comment is that this is with lockdowns and other restrictions.
And we do have evidence that real, enforced lockdowns plus testing plus contact tracing can yield better results than the West: South Korea, China, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  c1ue
April 13, 2020 8:33 am

That might be true, but maybe not. We just don’t know. Another way of interpreting the data is that the lockdowns have delayed or slowed an nearly inevitable penetration of the virus into the population, and that population density is a major determinant of what proportion of a population will ultimately be infected. It will take a lot of after-the-fact analysis to sort this out.

Antero Ollila
Reply to  c1ue
April 13, 2020 10:31 am

The real difference between South Corea, Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand is that they had totally different strategy for COVID-19. They prevented the virus to enter their countries.

Reply to  Antero Ollila
April 13, 2020 10:28 pm

So maybe the only clear, undisputed take home fact of that crisis will be that controlling your borders is a plus?

No, that can’t be right.

Reply to  niceguy
April 15, 2020 12:58 am

Another factor in this is the culture of the population. The South Koreans were individually very willing to comply with the restrictions and quarantines.
Americans in different parts of the US show huge differences in their willingness to follow guide lines or rules.

Reply to  Antero Ollila
April 13, 2020 8:15 am

Spain and Italy are likely the worse cases in terms of death rates. The U.S. rate is a fraction of theirs. So, likely, in this round, total deaths will be well under 100K.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Antero Ollila
April 13, 2020 8:22 am

110,000? color me skeptical.

Indications are that U.S. is now within a few days of peak, and current deaths are at about 22,000. Where are 90,000 more deaths going to come from AFTER the peak?

A snapshot of the curve slope at any given moment is NOT a predictor of the future.

April 13, 2020 7:17 am

And with each new dire prediction, the media leads with a mass extinction headline. The modelers only get traction with the complicity of a corrupted media.

April 13, 2020 7:20 am

Models are imaginary assumptions that rise to the expectations of a goal. Go into court with that one and see what a reasonable judge would do.

Reply to  Olen
April 13, 2020 12:05 pm

Models are the only way you can make predictions, unless you want to count wishful thinking.

Steve Case
April 13, 2020 7:22 am

Real scientists … don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data

It’s called rewriting history.

Put bluntly, what climate modelers are essentially saying is this: We don’t need data… In other words:

“Data? We ain’t got no data! We don’t need no data! We don’t have to show you any stinking data!”

Jeffery P
Reply to  Steve Case
April 13, 2020 7:59 am

Those who control the past control the future.

Steve Case
Reply to  Jeffery P
April 13, 2020 8:58 am

Jeffery P April 13, 2020 at 7:59 am

Thanks for reminding me:

If you control the language, you control the argument
If you control the argument, you control information
If you control information, you control history
If you control history, you control the past
He who controls the past controls the future.” – Big Brother, 1984

April 13, 2020 7:23 am


Nick Schroeder
April 13, 2020 7:32 am

Facts don’t work on WUWT any better than they do anywhere else.

Carlo, Monte
April 13, 2020 7:38 am

Any “computer model” of a parameter into the future is an extrapolation, and the uncertainty of an extrapolation increases as the time difference from the present increases. This is basic statistics, and cannot be avoided.

April 13, 2020 7:40 am

“And we have the climate data. We’ve got years of data. The data show the models don’t match reality.”
But we do not have all of the necessary data or even a way to gather it to make the models reliable. Look at Pat Frank’s paper. The cloud uncertainty, which is not reducible in any reasonable way, makes the model predictions meaningless. Literally meaningless-with no reliable information about future states of the climates of the world.

Ron Long
April 13, 2020 7:41 am

Good report by Paul and David. I remember commenting herein that when I managed a Research effort for one of the worlds famous billionaires, I insisted on every other Friday the entire research group participate in “Reality Check Friday”, where we not only discussed whether we were advancing scientifically, but also whether we were developing cost-effective techniques that represented higher reward potential and at lower costs. After all, if you could just send out a army of samplers and achieve favorable results, why bother refining Supervised Classification as an advanced technique? Now we see, played out before our very eyes, programs in favor which may destroy the economic ability to pay for any Covid-19 mitigation, effective or not. And, as authors and commentators note, the answer to everything seems to be destroy Capitalism and Trump along with it. Stay sane and safe.

Jon Ranes
April 13, 2020 7:45 am

Spooked Herd + Grand Theft Planet

April 13, 2020 7:51 am

Did any of these models account for summer coming in either the death expectation or variance of number of deaths?

Jeffery P
Reply to  Stevek
April 13, 2020 9:02 am

We don’t know because we never get to see the source code. Sound familiar?

Reply to  Jeffery P
April 13, 2020 9:27 am

Yes it does. Totally ridiculous and NOT transparent. We must all bow down to the new Models and to question them is blasphemy.

April 13, 2020 7:56 am

We developed HTCCs some time ago as broad-range inhibitors of coronaviral entry. Now we show that they are effective against SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV in vitro and ex vivo. A long way to the clinic, but they work really well! Keep your fingers crossed.

We developed these broad range anticoronavirals together with the team led by prof. Nowakowska & prof. Szczubialka from the Faculty of Chemistry, with great support from the research teams in China. We also would like to thank the University of Gdańsk and Slaskie Centrum Chorób Serca.

April 13, 2020 8:03 am

I think there is going to be a huge backlash against Leftists who sensationalized model claims that 2.2 million Americans would die from the Wuhan flu by August, but in reality, only 40,000 will die, which is fewer than regular flu’s annual toll.

Of course Leftists will claim shutting down the economy and wasting $6 trillion of taxpayers’ money is why so few Americans actually died, but Americans aren’t that stupid.

Leftists want to waste another $96 trillion over 10 years on CAGW mitigation based on spurious doom and gloom climate projections, which again, is completely devoid from reality.

Unfortunately, the global economy will likely collapse from the monetary effects of trusting Leftists‘ damned computer models because Leftism is the party of “SCIENCE!” (TM)…

April 13, 2020 8:04 am

“100,000 Americans at the models’ low end” at 2000 a day it wont take long for the US to get there.

Reply to  Matt_S
April 13, 2020 9:08 am

You should look up Gompertz distribution. We are, apparently, near the peak of the curve. Getting to 100K would require a sustained 40 or more days of deaths at or near the peak number.

That’s not how these things work.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Lancifer
April 13, 2020 9:42 am

What Lancifer said.

April 13, 2020 8:10 am

The funny part is this: If 2% die of this infection and the USA has 330 Mio residents, then we definitely will need a computer model to estimate the potential outcome..

When have computer models started to replace primary school mathematics???

Anyhow, this is not fun but serious business. With an official death toll of 22k, rising by 2k a day and yet a certain underreporting in these numbers, it is not hard see a 100k death toll coming up at least. Also the virus has likely spread to 2-3 mio by now in the USA – which again can be derived from the death toll.

It could potentially be about 100 times worse with 200.000 people dying a day. I just don’t think it is an option.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Leitwolf
April 13, 2020 2:04 pm

Yeah, right. And if you projected my growth rate at age 11 to my current age, I should be 22 feet tall.

I’ll say it once again- the curve at the moment is NOT a predictor of the future.

Robert Clement
April 13, 2020 8:11 am

I agree completely with you criticism of the level of science applied to climate modeling. But the way to resolve that problem is not to expect the biased climate modelers to improve their models but to create a better model yourself and prove them wrong. Where are the good scientists building better models with more predictive power? It seems to me that this is the best way to win the debate.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Robert Clement
April 13, 2020 8:41 am

The really, really great modelers are employed doing the Covid-19 and the Climate models. The best modelers in the world can NOT get the climate or the virus vectors right. Why not? Because it is a fool’s errand. Look elsewhere for fools.

Reply to  Robert Clement
April 13, 2020 9:15 am

And now that we’re not distinguishing “deaths from CVD-19” from “deaths with CVD-19”, we should hit our 100,000 target no problem.

If we really push it, maybe even reach the holy grail 2.2 million.

Looks like those models were right after all. Wahoo!

Reply to  Klem
April 13, 2020 9:56 am

Naked skydivers who forgot parachutes now lumped in as “COVID-19,” too! 😉

April 13, 2020 8:25 am

The Willis monitoring graph page seems to be showing that SWEDEN is the only country that seems to have a flat or falling curve compared with all other countries thats yesterdays graph 13/4/20. Can’t wait to see today’s and tomorrow’s. If it keeps falling and others keep rising, a lot of heads will role in the CDC, FDA ECT

Reply to  Eliza
April 13, 2020 4:16 pm

Sweden and Belarus will be interesting case studies when this is done. If they do no worse than everyone else then there will be trillion dollar egg on a lot of faces.

April 13, 2020 8:27 am

We do have a major problem with this virus throughout the country but our solutions should be aligned to the specific nature and scope of the problem. The same applies probably to Climate Change.
For example, yesterday, prompted by an image of the crowded #2 Train in NYC from March 30th, I reworked the Worldometer numbers and realized that much of the problem emanates from the Tri-State area which has 10% of the population, 47% of the cases and 55% of the deaths as of April 12! An analysis by county rather than by States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut would make this pattern even starker.
This is the area where it is most difficult to impose a lock down, yet it is most needed. De Blasio and Cuomo have their work cut out.

April 13, 2020 8:30 am

Of course no politician will say what is an acceptable level of deaths. There will be deaths from this for many years even if vaccine is found, just less deaths. What is the acceptable number given that we can’t stop all deaths ?

Without being told a realistic goal along with the economic loss due to making that goal it is not possible to come up with effective policy.

Also if enabling tracking systems for citizens we need to know what loss of liberty American people will accept.

April 13, 2020 8:41 am

The CDC never aggressively went after the critical data required to make the epidemiological models very predictive. R0 still is not known with the accuracy required…because it is not known how many people have, or did have the disease to derive R0.

These models are orders of magnitude more reliable for predictive skill than Climate Models…and usually very useful. But you must have good data.

Did the CDC make a great effort to get the data? They made just about no effort. R0 requires actual infection numbers (not just confirmed infection numbers) and population infection rate information. Neither is know because the forensic work using Serum Antibody Testing was given no priority…and is just now starting. Basic data, easily obtained, was not sought after. Almost exactly like estimating how long a journey will take when there is no velocity data available…only potential velicity limits.

That’s bad science and horrible Public Health…very poor Policy recommendations (wasteful, sloppy, and damaging) results should be expected.

Andy Pattullo
April 13, 2020 8:43 am

Modelling is an understandable exercise in the midsts of a new epidemic. It is also understandable that initial models will be wrong and that, with additional data and revision, the models will gradually approach a semblance of what happens in the real world. That said, I am concerned that the models for CoVID have initially taken their lead from outlier events in large urban centres that were highly impacted early on by unique factors. The models made some very naive and wrong assumptions about the proportion of the population susceptible by reason of genetics/immunity/behavioural factors, the natural mortality rate and rate of critical illness requiring ICU support. We know the initial models were way off because the projections from those highly affected regions such as Spain, Italy, Iran and New York failed entirely to predict the thankfully early plateau of cases and deaths we are now seeing. Thankfully, unlike in climate “science”, the errors are immediately and glaringly evident for CoVID models and the modellers are compelled to revise on the fly to acknowledge the real world evidence. This is on top of the fact that nearly everyone has already been massively impacted by the measures that were predicated on the models and those effects are tolerable for only a very short period of time if they cannot be justified by accurate predictions. None of this seems to apply in the climate world where simply predicting Armageddon and getting on the interview circuit is a full and “Mannly” academic career. Reality seems irrelevant.

Working Dog
April 13, 2020 8:48 am

Obtaining and using reliable data would be a good start. Here is a video from a doc in Idaho. They are going about this correctly given the mess the Chinese Communist Party, WHO and lots of other psychopaths have pushed on us.

He explains the various tests (eg. RT-PCR, Antibody (IgM and IgG) and their uses. He also highlights the limitations of the PCR test.

He further notes that so far 5% of the tested population has antibodies and about 50% never show any symptoms.

Why CDC did not jump on the development of a complete and reliable set of assays much earlier than they did boggles the mind.

April 13, 2020 8:49 am

Virtually everyone seems to understand that one should re-tune the model(s) as more data is available, except “climate change” proponents.

Whenever possible in a conversation or in social media I try to point this out.

Maybe some folks will re-tune their thought models?

B. Kindseth
April 13, 2020 8:57 am

Two of Dr Fauci’s quotes say it all, “Data is real, a model is hypothesis,” and “Data trumps models.”

Curious George
Reply to  B. Kindseth
April 13, 2020 9:55 am

What data is real? What percentage of population is naturally immune? What percentage simply show no symptoms?
The only data approaching reality are death statistics.

Dave O.
April 13, 2020 9:09 am

We don’t know the number of variables or how influential each variable is. But, other than that, the models should be spot on.

James F. Evans
April 13, 2020 9:11 am

S.I. Hayakawa: “The map is not the territory.”

If the various projections of the models, which were wildly off, doesn’t prove the above quote, I don’t know what will.

April 13, 2020 9:26 am

Some didn’t need “models” to describe a contagious and deadly disease.
In the 1550s England suffered one called the “Sweating” sickness and in 1551 Edward VI noted:
“Came the sweat into London, which was more vehement than the old sweat. For if one took cold he died within three hours, but if he “scaped, it held him but nine hours, or ten at the most.
Also, if he slept the first six hours, as he should be very desirous to do, then he raved, and should die raving. It grew so much, that I removed to Hampton Court, with very few with me.”
That’s from Chapman, “The Last Tudor King”.

Steven Miller
April 13, 2020 9:29 am

“But if the numbers coming in are more like Washington or California, which reacted early and kept their infection and death rates down”

The odd thing about this statement… is that the hospital ICU units were already clearing out and the number of deaths were already dwindling in the eastern part of King County where this started first got a foothold in this country, BEFORE the governor’s “stay at home order. When the media began to notice, suddenly this data stopped being released because of a “software glitch”. Strangely my close friend who is a top FEMA official had no difficulties obtaining the same info the entire time.

On March 26, the Washington Post had the following headline. “Where Coronavirus outbreak started in Washington State, officials see hope as cases appear to be leveling off”. That was actually an understatement, Evergreen Hospital’s ICU unit had returned to normal, and they were only having a death every day or two. Despite our statewide death totals increasing largely through creative accounting methods the crisis in eastern King County didn’t just peak it basically went away approximately 3 weeks ago, and it happened before anything the government had done could have had any effect.

April 13, 2020 10:01 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/daily-coronavirus-covid-19-data-graph-page/ the 12th of April graphs shows that the ONLY country that is not rising (DEATHS) is SWEDEN! To be watched carefully over next few days. May completely overturn lockdown “theories” My guess is that total deaths everywhere would have been exactly the same over the 4 month period except that the peaks would have been higher earlier and that why everybody freaks out but the result is the same my 2 cents worth!

Reply to  Eliza
April 13, 2020 1:52 pm

People are dying because doctors don’t know what they’re doing. My guess is deaths will begin to plummet as more and more doctor’s realize that and change their treatments accordingly, and as more and more people are treated with hydroxychloroquine and other alternative treatments, and as spring begins to stretch her legs and the sun throws more UV our way.

April 13, 2020 10:02 am

I hope I am wrong, but it feels to me that that the leftists have already won, having gotten a taste of absolute power over the citizenry and the economy. It isn’t much of a leap to substitute climate emergency for COVID emergency, and they enact similar powers over us to force on us their collective will the availability of energy use. Whomever controls that, controls the world and I am sure that Red China will really double down now on the West limiting climate change through fossil fuel reduction/carbon taxation and promoting the purchasing of their solar panels and windmills. Anything to disrupt our economy, which they just caused by their delayed response to their coronavirus that they allowed escape to the rest of the world, knowingly. We know that much for a fact, that they deliberately allowed the seeding of this infection around the planet by lying to all of us the seriousness of the problem for the first 6 weeks while they took measures internally to counteract everything they were saying for us not to worry about.

Joel Snider
April 13, 2020 10:24 am

I’m sorry, but every time I see Fauci, I can’t help but see ‘Doctor Shrinker’.
comment image&exph=160&expw=195&q=dr.+shrinker&selectedindex=8&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6

April 13, 2020 10:53 am

My guess the 2nd Task force will not include Fauci ect he doesnt have to fire him but will be able to open the country. BTW this virus is a normal flu virus and is everywhere that why you get the flu in cold countries where people should not be living cheers and LOL

April 13, 2020 11:42 am

Paul Driessen and David R. Legates:

I have been advocating your advice for years.
Forty years ago I was writing computer code used for accident analysis of Nuclear Power Plants. These models were also used in the development of Training Simulators and had to accurately mimic the plant in all phases of operation, events and accidents. My models provided information that added 2% power to the grid by optimizing feed water heater tank levels. Thy also provided data that were less than 0.1% different than the data recorded during all events experienced by the plant and used to support power upgrades and fuel change accident analysis for the NRC. If I had provided the sludge that the climate change advocates call Climate Change Models I would have been fired on the spot and black-listed from any work in the power industry. These Climate Terrorists get more funding and promotions.
WHY do we tolerate this sludge?

Dan Tauke
April 13, 2020 11:58 am

Seems like likely takeaways to this will be: (1) WHO did a horrible job; (2) This virus DID warrant a shutdown, if only to SLOW the progression until treatments and vaccines came online to save lives (3) Countries as a whole weren’t as prepared as they need to be either in their decision making (including capturing data and modelling as decision support tools) as well as supplies and logistics (testing, PPE, ventilators, et al); (4) masks and bowing may be safer cultural norms than no masks, hand shakes and kissing. I abhor the lefts take on most of this, but I think anyone with family in the high risk area can appreciate the number of lives being saved by “slowing down” the initial wave of cases. Just letting this run out and getting to herd immunity would never be accepted by the public imo, and is different than climate change where any family deaths are far into the future or much less cause-effect related to the average person.

Reply to  Dan Tauke
April 13, 2020 3:32 pm

Well said Dan.
I congratulate you on your concise evaluation of the spread and treatment of this disease .
Do nothing and covid 19 goes through rest homes and other at risk people like the plague.
Is that what those calling for no restrictions and letting herd immunity build in the wider community ?

Tom Abbott
April 13, 2020 12:02 pm

From the article: “Honest, evidence-based climate models could avoid trillions of dollars in policy blunders”

Yes, but we didn’t have that luxury with the unknown Wuhan virus.

Instead, we had to estimate using the best guesses, and then as data on the infection comes in, this data is fed into the computer models and the data modifies the computer models up or down, depending on the numbers. That’s why the initial estimates change over time. It’s not because they were “wrong”, because all initial models are just as “wrong” until they get data fed into them. Before data, they are guesses. Sometimes the guesses are educated guesses, but they are guesses just the same. The real data is what puts reality into the models.

And here we are on April 13, and the latest estimate of the number of deaths from Wuhan virus if nothing was done to stop it from spreading is about 1.1 million deaths (Chris Monckton) which comes in at the low end of the initial estimate of one million to 2.2 million deaths in the U.S. if nothing is done.

So it doesn’t look like the models, which now have much more data than was available at the start of the pendemic, are out of the ballpark on the number of deaths that would occur without intervention.

The lower initial estimate of 100,000 deaths if 50 percent of Americans practiced safe distancing, is higher than the current estimates of 61,000 deaths, and that could be explainable if more than 50 percent of Americans were practicing safe distancing.

So claims that the models are way off base are BS (Bad Science). The models are reflecting the data within them.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 14, 2020 7:05 am

What data?

We had no data on the virus. It was project fear all over again.

Dan D
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 14, 2020 4:56 pm

“1 million to 2.2 million initially” I’ve enver heard of this low estimate of 1 million

Fauci may have been referencing the internal CDC model which had 1.7 million deaths, but it was also an upper limit. Models based with uncertain data, must broaden their projection limits based on that uncertainty. That’s what makes a model honest, as we all know and you demonstrate by trying to revise history on what the model accounted for happening.

“assumed [only possible] 50 percent of Americans [could] practice social distancing [confirmed by WH task force] -Robert Redfield”


That calculation was not shared widely. In reality, a much larger number — 90% — is observing the government’s guidelines, US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said in several interviews this week.”

The lower limit was dead wrong. Unless the model was presented as “A garbage out model which has nothing to do with the coronavirus” it’s dishonest, and shafts the public for some ads.

Dan D
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 14, 2020 5:42 pm

“1 million to 2.2 million initially” I’ve never heard of this low estimate of 1 million

Fauci had been probably referencing the internal CDC model which had 1.7 million deaths, not the 1 million which has been beared out with the more recent Monchton estimate. Models based with uncertain data, must broaden their projection limits based on that uncertainty. That’s what makes a model honest, as we all know and you demonstrate by trying to revise history on what the model accounted for happening.

“assumed [only possible] 50 percent of Americans [could] practice social distancing [confirmed by WH task force] -Robert Redfield”


That calculation was not shared widely. In reality, a much larger number — 90% — is observing the government’s guidelines, US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said in several interviews this week.”

The lower limit was an unqualified wrong. Unless the model was presented as “A garbage out model which has nothing to do with the coronavirus” it’s dishonest, and shafts the public for some ads.

April 13, 2020 12:13 pm

There is no time the USA Fausci ect are destroying your country this is a normal flu virus you are destroying your country Trump needs to OPeN you country or we will all be dead from hunger not the virus. please for CHrist sake wake up

Reply to  Eliza
April 13, 2020 1:42 pm

I think he’s getting ready to.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Eliza
April 14, 2020 4:35 am

“There is no time the USA Fausci ect are destroying your country this is a normal flu virus you are destroying your country Trump needs to OPeN you country or we will all be dead from hunger not the virus.”

The Rnaught for Wuhan virus is estimated to be 5.7. That’s a little more infectious than the flu virus.

I heard an idiot reporter yesterday telling us all about how 16.2 million Americans were out of work and our current situation is almost as bad as the Great Depression of 1929. I wish I had been standing beside him when he said that, and I would have said, “Wake up fella! Stop scaring people unnecessarily. The people that lost their jobs in 1929, didn’t have unemployment insurance payments to fall back on, or other governent programs. They lost their jobs in 1929, and they were out of money. Period. That’s not the case today, and today does not compare to the Great Depression in anything but numbers of people affected. The U.S. economy is strong, maybe never stronger. That was not the case in 1929.

When the economy starts back up (within eight weeks), nearly all of those 16.2 million people will get their jobs back and in the meantime they get paid to keep them solvent until the economy gets back on track. Nothing like 1929.

More than anything, we need rapid virus and antibody testing. Once we get a clear picture of what is going on with this virus in the human population, then we can deal with it effectively, and we will get that picture from extensive testing.

April 13, 2020 12:14 pm

The new science of plausible based on assumptions/assertions for preferred outcomes.

April 13, 2020 12:45 pm

On the CDC forecast model for the ongoing flu season rates, the data is presented as 5, 50, 95 percentile results. There is a wide range between the 5 and 95 percentile. Unfortunately, the 50 percentile and low results isn’t very alarming so the worst case scenario is presented.

High Treason
April 13, 2020 2:34 pm

Please note a major conflict of interest- Dr Fauci is on the board of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Explains why he is dismissive of hydroxychloroquine-vested interest in Bill Gates’ vaccine.
Even more suspicious is Bill Gates, who has always stated that there are too many humans is calling for compulsory vaccination with verification (read RFID implant.) Please explain.
Like the hysterically inaccurate climate models, we have seen the same thing with the COVID models. Both have used tampered data- there is evidence of deaths of older people documented as Coronavirus-to die with coronavirus as opposed to of coronavirus is a semantic manipulation to deceive the People in to surrendering their freedoms. The same sort of massaging of the data occurs with the climate hysteria. The outcome would be the same- shutdown of the economy.
Here in Australia, the police have been fast in becoming dictatorial. How quickly did we degenerate in to a police state. Remember, we have only had 60 odd deaths-all older, comorbid cases that would not have been that far from death’s door anyway. We have had the economy shut down and police marauding the streets fining (now unemployed) people $1,000 just for being outside.
In the unsustainable shutdown economy, we have had a 38% reduction in emissions, which is still short of the 45% reduction that Labor wanted!! Even a shutdown economy has not met the target! Remember, they were only 1.5% off winning the election with this insane policy and an unelectable leader.
The Boy that Cried Wolf and The Emperor’s New Clothes are not merely children’s tales, they are a subtle warning that mass hysteria is constantly being used to deceive us out of our freedoms.
This is why we need to be more active. There are forces that are trying to take our freedoms.

Reply to  High Treason
April 13, 2020 2:55 pm

Reply to  High Treason
April 13, 2020 3:43 pm

Why not that big nasty vaccination I, everybody, got as a kid that left a scare the size of a nickle on your arm. Just do the same thing on the wrist?
Note: I am Not being serious.

Tom in Florida
April 13, 2020 2:40 pm

Now tell me how nice is it to be homebound in cold, nasty weather with little chance to be outside?
I will tell you that here in Florida with temperatures in the 80’s, lots of sunshine and fresh breezes, being able to take walks, work in your yard or just sit outside enjoying the weather makes the current situation a lot less stressful and a lot more enjoyable.
So, climate fearmongers, tell me again why a warmer world isn’t better?

April 13, 2020 3:29 pm

Overestimates and overreactions of coronavirus danger have the effect of making people more cautious about their own safety and that of their friends and results in sensible actions that protect people. Overestimates and overreactions to the non-existent Climate Catastrophy deprive people of the benefits of fossil fuels and their side products that protect people’s lives. People may begin to notice this difference in the future. Climate Models have always overstated any warming and ignored the obvious benefits. Climate Models are adjusted to mimic the past to make it look like they predict future and past temperatures accurately. The past temperature data is ruthlessly altered and rewritten to change the resulting climate sensitivity to match reality. People may start to notice this malfeasance and investigate the fraud.

Rudolf Huber
April 13, 2020 5:07 pm

I have said it for a long time and I won’t stop doing that now. Models are opinions. They are whatever someone says they shall be. They have very little if anything at all to do with actual measured reality. But that’s not what the Climate Alarmist crowd is telling us. They say that they know what will happen. When they only think so and can’t even prove their assumptions. Plus, their assumptions must be garbage as every model fails when it’s tested against reality. When I worked for a gas trading company, we had a team that ran projections on deals. On one they made 100 projections to chose from. When I get stuff like this I know that they know nothing. Like the Alarmist crowd.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rudolf Huber
April 14, 2020 4:47 am

“I have said it for a long time and I won’t stop doing that now. Models are opinions.”

Models start out as opinions. If you put real data into a model, then it becomes more than an opinion.

The difference between virus computer models and human-caused climate change computer models is virus computer models input actual data, whereas human-caused climate change models are made up of guesses.

Then the alarmists try to refine their CAGW models (using more guesses) by trying to make them match the bogus, bastardized global surface temperature record. Even if they were successful at matching the bogus surface temperature record (and they are not), it would be meaningless, since every bit of it is science fiction. They would be matching science fiction to science fiction.

April 13, 2020 6:50 pm

Looks like the thread is getting back on track. I thought the whole idea of this post is that it proves that any model is only worth the accuracy of the data that goes into it. I suspect there wasn’t enough information available early on with the Covid-19 virus pandemic to get accurate predictions, hopefully the data will be adjusted with actual figures to reflect more realistic likely outcome. Reflecting on what should or should not have been done changes nothing, it’s been done. We need some factual data to help us decide the best way forward.

The current ‘climate’ models have only ever been adjusted to present a desired agenda. The results being presented from them are no more ‘real’ than ‘consensus’ science.

Mike Dubrasich
April 13, 2020 8:55 pm

If I was to model the “pandemic”, I would use a logistic model. That would not solve the crappy data problem, but it would provide a framework.

Biological growth (cumulative) of virus epidemics, or trees, or humans, or other biological phenomena, in general follows the logistic function: F(x) = 1/(1+e^-1). The logistic curve is sigmoid or S-shaped. When it “flattens” is a subjective judgement, but the cumulative curve has a distinct and calculable inflection point.

The first derivative of the cumulative curve is the growth rate, which follows the logistic distribution. It is bell-shaped like the Gaussian curve, although it is different mathematically: F(x) = e^-x/(1+e^-x)^2. The peak of the growth rate curve is contemporaneous (because the x-axis is time) with the inflection point of the cumulative growth curve.

The second derivative is acceleration. It is S-shaped on its side, like a sine wave skewed to the right. Acceleration passes through the x-axis (equals zero) at the point when the rate peaks and cumulative growth inflects. Thereafter acceleration is negative (deceleration) and dips into negative territory before it asymptotically approaches the x-axis from below.

The Gompertz function is a specialized case of the general logistic function, and is sometimes used for growth studies because it has coefficients that can be solved for using linear regression, assuming that one has reliable data to analyze. The coefficients correspond to asymptotes and scaling.

Also sometimes used is the Weibull distribution, another specialized form of the logistic with asymptote, shape, and scaling coefficients. We used the Weibull to develop tree and stand growth models back when I was a grad student.

The logistic model is useful for biological growth. Technically the model is logistic, not “exponential” or “logarithmic”. It also works for drag racing in case you want to model the distance traveled, speed, and acceleration of your dragster.

I speculate based on unreliable data that we have already passed the inflection point, that the growth rate has peaked, and the “pandemic” is decelerating. With or without “mitigation” — biology does that kind of thing.

Ian Coleman
April 14, 2020 12:05 am

Let’s not get too pedantic about our terms here, folks, but all increases are exponential, including negative increases. It’s just a matter of choosing the appropriate exponent. But I know what people mean when they use the word exponential, and it’s the connotation that supplies the practical meaning.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Ian Coleman
April 14, 2020 8:12 am

Sorry to be pedantic, but I was trying to teach you something. You can use “exponential”, or “logarithmic”, or “non-linear””, or “uppy uppy”, or whatever term you like. Be wild, be free.

But if you wish to model growth, the nominative topic of this post, then I advise you to use some form of the logistic function. Otherwise you will be doing it wrong and your model will suck.

April 14, 2020 12:09 am

“What if the White House, EPA, Congress, UN, EU and IPCC acknowledged that climate models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions built into them? What if – as the months and years went by and we got more real-world temperature, sea level and extreme weather data – we used that information to honestly refine the models? Would the assumptions and therefore the forecasts change dramatically?”

Well, that would be logical reasoning. Not gonna happen.

Anthony Banton
April 14, 2020 3:04 am

“Model-pedicted temperatures are more than 0.5 degrees F above actual satellite-measured average global temperatures”

Satellite based average temperatures are not what the GCMs project.
The surface record as confirmed by AIRS vs GISS is …..


GISS vs AR5 GCM ensemble …..

comment image

“Models that were used in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report can be evaluated by comparing their approximately 20-year predictions with what actually happened. In this figure, the multi-model ensemble and the average of all the models are plotted alongside the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Index (GISTEMP). Climate drivers were known for the ‘hindcast’ period (before 2000) and forecast for the period beyond. The temperatures are plotted with respect to a 1980-1999 baseline.”

“– and “highest ever” records are mere hundredths of a degree above previous records from 50 to 80 years ago.”

No, eg …..
France: all time high of 45.9C 28 Jun 2019 (Previous 44.1 2003)

Sweden, Bergen: 33.3 (previous 32.2)

Alaska, Anchorage 32.2 (29.4)

“The meteorological winter of 2019-2020 shattered temperature records in Russia and France as well as other parts of Europe and the United States. In Moscow, this was the warmest winter in nearly 200 years of record-keeping, and the first winter there to have an average temperature at or above 32 degrees (0 Celsius).

“The official report of 19.0 degrees Celsius in the town Sunndalsøra is the highest temperature ever measured in Norway and Scandinavia itself, in January or any winter month! The previous Norwegian record of 17.9 °C was measured in Tafjord in 1989.”

Yes, yes, I know …. If you say so.

Verified by MonsterInsights