I am not sure what exactly he is ranting against since I looked back in FEbruary/March timeframes and it looks like he was all for lockdowns. Is he ranting against the "2 million US dead if zero lockdown" type models? Is he suggesting scientists did not discuss this topic back in February/march? That seems hard to believe, but he is saying no one discussed it with him and things would have gone differently if groups of scientists had talked on Zoom. If that's true, and scientists weren't discussing this, where does that failure lay? I'm trying to figure out the target of his rant and what he is really saying. This was him quoted in a March 25th article:
"Levitt said he can see a better outcome in the U.S. than what has taken place in China, Italy or Iran, especially with social distancing measures in place. He said social-distancing mandates are critical in cutting the number of coronavirus cases. "BAck in February/MArch he got acclaim for predicting the end of the China outbreak. He predicted in February only 80 something K cases and less than 4 K deaths in China, and that's how he got some attention apparently. But this was from an article at that time:
_______________
"When they answered us, describing how complicated their situation was, I decided to take a deeper look at the numbers in the hope of reaching some conclusion," Levitt explained. "The rate of infection of the virus in the Hubei province increased by 30% each daythat is a scary statistic. I am not an influenza expert but I can analyze numbers and that is exponential growth." At this rate, the entire world should have been infected within 90 days, he said.
But then, the trend changed. When Levitt started analyzing the data on February 1, Hubei had 1,800 new cases each day and within six days this number reached 4,700, he said. "And then, on February 7, the number of new infections started to drop linearly and did not stop. A week later, the same happened with the number of the deaths. This dramatic change in the curve marked the median point and enabled better prediction of when the pandemic will end. Based on that, I concluded that the situation in all of China will improve within two weeks. And, indeed, now there are very few new infection cases._____________________Hubei locked down between January 22nd and 27th, I find it strange and not entirely scientific he feels he can understand and estimate the true nature of the virus in a non-locked down environment by using data from a locked down population. From wikipedia:
__________________________
Soon after Wuhan's January 23 lockdown, Huanggang and Ezhou, two Hubei cities bordering Wuhan, followed suit, suspending their public transport systems.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hubei#cite_note-118][118][/url] By January 24, Huangshi, Chibi, Jingzhou, Yichang, Xiaogan, Jingmen, Zhijiang, Qianjiang, Xiantao, Xianning, Dangyang and Enshi restricted inbound and outbound traffic, affecting over 40 million residents.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hubei#cite_note-119][119][/url] With Xiangyang becoming the last Hubei city to declare lockdown, all of Hubei's cities are quarantined by January 27 with local access to the road and railway networks temporarily shut down.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hubei#cite_note-:16-21][21][/url] Forest-covered Shennongjia is the only part of Hubei that has not been locked down.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hubei#cite_note-:31-117][117][/url]
At least 56 million Hubei's residents were isolated. All public places except hospitals, supermarkets, farmers' markets, gas stations and drug stores were closed.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hubei#cite_note-120][120][/url] Starting from February 1, the Hubei city of Huanggang introduced a curfew which allows only one member of a local family to shop on the streets every two days, making it the first city to restrict the people from going outdoors.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hubei#cite_note-DayHigh-22][22][/url]_______________________
But maybe he understood that and was just predicting it would end.....with a lockdown and changed behavior. But again, if that's the case, I don't know what he is railing against? Was he FOR lockdown back in March but has learned more by the video above and says we shouldn't have locked down at all in hindsight, due to the fact average ages of death before and during the pandemic has only been reduced by 3-4 weeks (I think that is what he is saying, correct?). From the same article in early March that I quoted above:
_______________________
Another reason the infection rate has slowed has to do with the physical distance guidelines. "You don't hug every person you meet on the street now, and you'll avoid meeting face to face with someone that has a cold, like we did," Levitt said. "The more you adhere, the more you can keep infection in check. So, under these circumstances, a carrier will only infect 1.5 people every three days and the rate will keep going down."
Quarantine makes a difference, according to Levitt, but there are other factors at work. "We know China was under almost complete quarantine, people only left home to do crucial shopping and avoided contact with others. In Wuhan, which had the highest number of infection cases in the Hubei province, everyone had a chance of getting infected, but only 3% caught it," he explained. "Even on the Diamond Princess (the virus-stricken cruise ship), the infection rate did not top 20%." Based on these statistics, Levitt said, he concluded that many people are just naturally immune to the virus.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hubei#cite_note-DayHigh-22][/url]
_______________________________I do see data suggesting the 15-20% infected rate is all that is needed before the outbreak abates, I understand his point there and want to keep looking at the data that we continue to gather.
He's being quoted as saying a lockdown was critical to limiting spread, he used data collected DURING a lockdown in China to predict when China would have an end to the pandemic, he says in the video above Germany locked down TOO EARLY and is now having a second outbreak, he is saying the lockdowns have caused great financial loss and will lock 9/11 look like nothing and people should be criminally prosecuted - it all seems a bit contradictory and I am still not sure I am clear on what he is saying SHOULD have happened and how this SHOULD have been handled. He did admit in the video it's incredibly complex and we should have been guided by a team of scientists who were discussing things, but didn't say what should have been done.
