RUSH: We have more model movement today, ladies and gentlemen. "Projected coronavirus deaths in the United States were lowered by 25% from 81,766 to 60,415 early Wednesday morning." This is the Washington state model, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Chris Murray model, IHME. This has been the lead model from the get-go.
This model is why we've done what we've done, plus the model from the U.K., the Neil Ferguson model. I forget the name of it off the top of my head. That's the model that predicted 2.2 million if we didn't do anything, and then they revised it. It was 2.2 million U.S., 500,000 U.K. if we didn't do anything, then they factored social distancing in the model, and the numbers went down to 20,000 from 2.2 million.
So that model has been used as well. But now "projections for coronavirus deaths in the U.S. by 25% from 81,766 to 60,415 early Wednesday morning. Wednesday's dramatic reverse in the model's projection of U.S. deaths was made without a press release from IHME explaining the reasons for the reduction." So they just lowered the prediction, projection; they didn't tell anybody why.
"It marks the second reduction in the model's U.S. deaths projections since April 1, when it forecast 93,765 U.S. fatalities." It's now down to 60,000. What happened to 240,000? What happened to 100,000 to 200,000? What happened to 240,000? Now this model is predicting down to 60,415 -- again, a 25% reduction in the models released just this morning.
RUSH: Now, folks, I want you to listen here to me because this is very important. I'm gonna run through this. I've got limited time. I'll do it again after the break at the bottom of the hour. I'm gonna start with the original projection from both the Imperial College and the IHME: 2.2 million people dead, if we don't do anything. That was their projection. They put the number out there.
It's a number we can use because they put it out there, and that was the starting point for all of this that's befallen us since. This morning they revised their number of projected deaths to 60,000. That is a reduction of 90% from the 2.2 million number. But what else? Does the number 60,000 -- 60,000 deaths -- does that resonate with any of you? Does the number 60,000 mean anything to you?
Well, let me tell you what it is: 60,000 is the number of deaths due to the flu every year in this country. It's between 30,000 and 60,000. So the very projections from the modelers who have given us our current circumstances, including the lockdown have now reduced their original projection of 2.2 million down to 60,000. That's a reduction of 90%. Do you realize how worthless a model is you can input different data and get that wide a variance?
But this is what the government's using. It's a 90% reduction from the original 2.2 million. It's their number. President Trump used it. Birx, Fauci, they all used it for a while, on purpose. It was to get everybody going on social distancing and mitigation. Now the latest projection today is 60,000 deaths, equal to the number of flu deaths. Hmm!
RUSH: In fact, ladies and gentlemen, that 60,000 flu death number was 80,000 in 2018. It's a 2018 article: 80,000 people died... It's the 2017-2018 winter season; 80,000 people died from the flu. Now, before you all start getting on your high horse, I understand the difference in the flu and this thing. I understand that we've got vaccines for various strains of the flu and we've all, as a society, become accepting.
We accept -- whatever it is, 30,000, 60,000, 80,000 -- deaths from the flu every year. We expect it, and it's just like the number of people we accept dying in automobile accidents. I understand that these projections on the coronavirus are based on everybody quarantining essentially, social distancing and all that because we don't have treatment and we don't have a vaccine and we don't have widespread testing.
So I understand the difference. I'm just trying to make the point here that we start out with a number of 2.2 million to scare the hell out of everybody, and it's used -- and it's used by the experts, the officials. They put it out there, and it's from a model, Imperial College, if we do nothing. The corresponding number in the U.K. was 500,000 deaths if we do nothing. My point is that all along, the number was irrelevant.
We should have never used it because we never were gonna do nothing. We immediately instituted the lockdown, social distancing or whatever -- "mitigation," as the experts likes to say -- and so that's what the numbers began to become 100,000, 200,000, 240,000. So even if you throw out the 2.2 million and stick with anywhere from 100,000 to 240,000, now they're down to 60,000, they're gonna claim...
Remember, these are the doomsayers. They never lose. They are never wrong. They can always claim that what they "doom-said" is the reason we've had success. It's the nature of doomsayers. So they are now saying that the projected number of deaths as of this morning is down to 60,000. Now, 60,000 people die from the flu every year, 30 to 60; sometimes worse.
It was worse with the swine flu -- much worse -- because there isn't any mitigation. People just go ahead and live their lives. If they get it, they get it. If they do, they do -- and if they don't, they don't. Some of them get it and perish and some don't. We have not wanted to deal with coronavirus that way because there's no treatment for it -- well, other than hydroxychloroquine, which the left is still attempting to ban and banish and ridicule and impugn.
But there is no official test. They're coming. There is certainly no vaccine. But I just find it fascinating that we're now down to 60,000 deaths (with mitigation, I understand this), the same number of deaths, according to the flu.
RUSH: Now in a story related to something I mentioned in the first half hour, and that is that many deaths that have nothing to do with and were not caused by COVID-19 are being chalked up to COVID-19.
Dr. Birx said it. It's a key word here. "If someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting it as a COVID-19 death." "With COVID-19" does not mean the same thing as "because of." If you have coronary heart failure, if you have a heart attack, if you have renal failure, kidney failure, and you also have -- if they find that you've got -- COVID-19, to heck with your heart disease, to heck with your kidney disease, they're chalking it up as a COVID-19 death.
So it may well be that the number of COVID-19 deaths isn't as high as we're being told. But it's obvious there are people who want it to be reported as high because they think that'll help them with their mitigation efforts, keeping people sequestered and socially distanced and all of that.
From the Daily Wire: "New York City Data: Vast Majority Who Have Died from Coronavirus Had Serious Underlying Conditions." Now, again, I don't want to be misunderstood. This in no way minimizes the suffering of these people who have succumbed to this, but it does confirm that the most vulnerable among us are those with compromised health before they acquire the virus. Here's a pull quote:
"According to the most recent data from the , almost two-thirds (65.6%) of the people who have died after testing positive for coronavirus have been confirmed to have one of those specified underlying conditions," diabetes, heart disease, obesity, kidney problems, liver problems, "while just 1.9% of the people who died after testing positive were confirmed to have 'no underlying conditions.'"
Only 1.9% of the people that died in New York City were confirmed to have no underlying conditions. That's huge! So people that have these underlying conditions obviously need to stay home. But we're getting to the point, I would think, where we could begin to think about turning the rest of us loose -- people that don't have any underlying health conditions.
"The data shows that 1,623 of the 2,475 who have died after testing positive in the city had a serious preexisting condition..."