By: Mark Glennon*
The numbers on COVID-19 are looking far better than most Illinoisans probably know. Hospitalizations for the virus, which is the best measure of its true course, are down 75% from their peak in November. The number of daily reported cases is down even further – 88%, and the number of daily fatalities, which lag the date of actual infection by three or four weeks, is down by 72%.
Why?
Vaccinations, obviously, are starting to make a difference. Over 2.1 million of Illinois’ 12.7 million people have had at least their first vaccination. That’s about 17% of the state.
But something far bigger is at work: the huge number of Illinoisans who have acquired natural immunity because they were already infected, mostly without knowing it. That’s probably over 7.6 million Illinoisans – about 60% of the state.
How can that be? It’s because the actual number of infections is about 6.5 for every reported case because most cases go unreported. That’s the current number used by Marty Makary, a professor at the John Hopkins School of Medicine, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week. Illinois has about 1.73 million reported cases, so you just multiply that by 6.5.
The virus, in simple terms, is finding nowhere to go. Far over half of its potential victims are either naturally immune or have been vaccinated.
A similar trend is happening nationally, though running a little later than Illinois because the nation as a whole has had fewer cases per capita than Illinois. About 55% of Americans have acquired natural immunity, Makary calculates, so new cases are dropping fast across the nation.
Nobody should be surprised, but it’s understandable if they are. The experts’ own numbers were pointing in this direction since at least November when we first wrote about it here. They just didn’t talk about the implications of their own numbers. Most of them rarely mention the role of natural immunity.
Why hide the ball? Makary says some medical experts privately agreed with his earlier prediction about natural immunity but suggested he not talk publicly about it because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or decline the vaccine.
In other words, they believe in lying about it. A white lie, perhaps, but a lie nonetheless.
Many no doubt continue to lie, which is why you read so little about natural immunity. That includes the Center for Disease control whose experts rarely say a word about it.
“Scientists shouldn’t try to manipulate the public by hiding the truth,” wrote Makary.
You’d think that would be obvious. It’s not their job to rig the science to get the policy results they like.
But that’s part of the post-truth world we now live in. If you want to trust the experts on COVID, you better pick which ones carefully.
*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.
UPDATE 2/21/20: Here’s a new illustration of the inconsistent garbage you get from the CDC: Just yesterday it was reported that the CDC “estimates that one-quarter of the US population has been infected with the coronavirus so far.” But wait, the CDC’s own site says there are 4.6 actual cases for every reported case, which means 40% (not 25%) of the country has been infected (129M actual cases).
And why is that 4.6 number so low? It’s new. Only a month ago that site said that number was between 6 and 16 and their best estimate was 11. Their own projections were using 10. That number does drop as time passes and more people get infected, but the CDC put up no explanation for why they dropped it so drastically. In truth, the number needs to be time weighted (to recognize that the number was much higher earlier) as Makary says he did to get his number of 6.5, which sounds reasonable and conservative. So there’s just no way that the CDC’s own numbers are consistent with their claim that just 25% of the population has been infected.
Audio and summary 
If this bill passes, say goodbye to local control over all Illinois parks and expect to see open drug and alcohol use, needles, no sanitation and fire hazards, but no ordinary park users.
I want to know why you did not see mass deaths among…the tent cities across America. The close quarters they keep….they all should be dead
Both Rahm E. and Winston C. believed that one should never let a good crisis go to waste.
Because to SP real data is irrelevant, a hindrance. This has been, continues to be nothing more than a way for pol to strong arm, bring pain to the working class to extort bail out $ from the Fed for all the unfunded, illegal, unconstitutional debt, pensions, patronage, vote buying entitlements, programs. As $ comes in sanctions will diminish but never completely go away, circa Sword of Damocles.
One confounding factor for the decrease in positive tests might be the updated guidance from WHO regarding the PCR testing on Jan 13. The change in guidance was driven by criticism that there was an inflated positive rate under the prior guidance (and oddly coincident with the end of Trump’s term in office). Of course, that would not explain the decrease in hospitalizations, that factor would point to increased immunity.
True, but hospitalization and death numbers are hard to rig.
I moved this comment to an update at the bottom of the article.
Doesn’t fit narrative. Never have I seen such inconsistent media coverage, and “professional” guidance concerning a health issue. I’ve read several articles which state vaccines aren’t particularly effective for mutated Covid strains. Bu that’s contrary to big-pharma and Dr F’s financial interests. I’ve read other recent “Dr F/CDC” articles which encourage people to “double-mask” to prevent infection, in addition to social isolation, hand-washing, and avoiding interaction with anyone outside their household, and so trumpeting urgency of vaccinations even as efficacy is questioned, also serving big-pharma/Dr F financial interests. Dr. F has huge ethical conflicts, given his personal investment and financial… Read more »
Streeterville, trying to follow the science from the “experts” has been extraordinarily frustrating for us for just that reason. They change their stories from day to day, they change metrics with no explanation, they ignore clear implications of their own data and they make no effort to distinguish things that might happen from what probably will happen. That goes from some of the most prominent sources, too, especially the CDC. After this is over, somebody needs to write a book cataloging all the bullshit they have peddled.
The institutional biases and poor incentives are concerning for sure but how to assess if one should put more weight to Streeterville or to Fauci when it comes to evidence related to Covid vaccines? i’ve followed the Covid-vaccines evidence quite closely and am ready to counter the following statement: “I’ve read several articles which state vaccines aren’t particularly effective for mutated Covid strains.” The evidence, so far, points to a relative decrease of efficacy for variants (especially the South African variant) but vaccines, so far, remain a very effective tool for immunity against known variants. The issue is the opportunity… Read more »
Carl, I suspect your point is right about the South African variant but, to me, it’s just another topic where it’s hard to sort out the BS. See my update at the bottom of the article. The same kind of BS is coming out about the South African variant. I am keeping an open mind about whether it presents a new risk but I am with you for now.
So how do you resolve the uncertainty? The CDC and others don’t have an ideal record but what is the alternative? Alternative sources can question the process but the alternative process has to be better, at least is some ways. This virus will end up as a small event in the grand scheme of things but it was an unusual challenge. People who have sincerely tried to figure it out sometimes came away with a large dose of humility. So dealing with this virus required a messy process of price discovery and, compared to GameStop and other games, it’s not… Read more »
Agreed. They need to be reformed and not thrown out. That will be no easy task since it goes beyond the CDC. It’s about how science has been politicized. Scientists who have distorted their work to reflect their politics are now common. They must be ridiculed to ignominy and honest science must rise again.
Would Jan Schakowsky suppress this content?
And, WHO reduced the suggested cycle threshold on PCR tests. If labs have decreased the cycle threshold to 33 or 35 there are likely far fewer positive tests. Of course, Illinois, unlike Florida, does not require labs to report the cycle threshold they used.
This is focusing on a non-issue.
For a very long list of reasons, individual CT results reporting has more disadvantages than advantages. Look below and see how most cases declared positive have lower CT threshold values.
The chart is the proof of WHY cycle counts over 28 shouldn’t even be performed. At 26, the positive result is more likely to be a false positive as the the negative result of an actual culture exceeds the positive shown by a PCR test. So any PCR test cycle count over 26 starts to increasingly become a false positive. This is absolutely important information for an attending physician and patient. Even at 20 cycles, 14% were false positives. At 28 cycles, 67% are false positives. Now an actual, much more accurate, culture test takes more time and is much… Read more »
So (typical real life scenario), what if you go this AM and your Ct is 28, this PM and your Ct is 36 and tomorrow and your Ct is 22. How does that help you and your attending physician? Message: there is so much uncertainty (statistical, collection technique, laboratory method, where one is in the disease process, if any) that the Ct value at the individual level has very limited value. The reference to culture results is interesting if thought of as a gold standard but it’s not, really an ideal tool and, as you mention, it is more expensive… Read more »
I’d be in a gulag if Jan had her way, and I doubt that’s exaggeration.
If media bias is a problem (it seems like it may be to some degree in Illinois), i wonder if some biases are more equal than others, even if coming from people far from the left. The population immunity goal is close to being reached but there is still room to go. A better question may be to how cost-effectively reach that goal. Maximizing vaccine delivery is part of the answer (the US and Illinois are doing relatively well on that front). A tough issue for leaders (right or left or whatever) is that the population can be divided into… Read more »
You mention the burden that more risk-tolerant may impose on the risk-averse, and that topic has been much discussed. What about the burden that the risk-averse have been imposing on the risk-tolerant for almost a year?
Of course, it’s a two-way street and i try to look in both directions.
Those who think differently are not necessarily enemies.
“Take a sad song and make it better”
It seems that those in power are coming very late to the realization that it is a two-way street. For most of the last year, anyone questioning lockdowns as the best/only way to deal with covid were painted as “science-deniers” who only wanted to push a right wing agenda.
I agree, the only way to make our current sad song better is for us all to realize that disagreement does not need to make us enemies.
Didn’t the WHO change the definition of “immunity” to when enough people get vaccinated?
Those rushing to get the vaccine had Covid last year. I mean verified and losing taste and smell.
The vaccine isn’t saving anyone any time soon because we are vaccinating the wrong people.