Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: They owe us an explanation. Now, I touched on this yesterday. We are owed a huge explanation. So, 2.2 million deaths. “Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God, 2.2. We gotta shut it down. And if we mitigate, maybe 240,000 deaths. If we social distance, we stay at home, if we shut down, if we wear masks, we do all this stuff, maybe a hundred thousand to 200,000, maybe 240,000.” Guess what?

Sixty thousand. “Fauci Slashes U.S. Death Projection, Raising Hope for Reopening.” The doomsayers get to get away with everything. “Fauci Slashes U.S. Death Projection, Raising Hope for Reopening.” What is wrong with this headline? Does Dr. Fauci have anything to do with reopening? Yes. That’s what’s wrong with the headline. This is a Bloomberg News story. “Top infectious disease official credits social distancing.” I’m gonna start calling BS on this.

Now, don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying it’s not important. I’m not saying it’s not relevant. But there is no way social distancing has made the difference in 2.2 million down to 60,000 dead. There is no way that social distancing made the difference from 240,000 dead projected now down to 60,000 dead. And what do you bet that number gets revised down in the coming days? There has to be something else going on here, and it has to be the projections were wrong in the first place because of the models, and we know that they were wrong.

But these guys get to revise their projections and hold on to their expertise status throughout the entire process. I just don’t believe social distancing has suddenly changed the data that lowers the forecast death toll from 240,000 to 60,000. We’re not stupid here.

And I’ll give you another bit of evidence for why I don’t believe this. California, oh, man, is this a huge See, I Told You So. Stanford researchers are now thinking, you know what, maybe it was herd immunity. Maybe the virus has been in California since last fall, and maybe in California they’ve developed an immunity to it, herd immunity. Most of the people that have been exposed to it got antibodies ’cause it makes no sense that in a state of 40 million the death toll is still under – I forget what it was — 750 a few days ago. It’s phenomenally low.

In the state of Oregon practically statistically zero deaths. And it’s not because of social distancing. They told us, they tried to tell us that social distancing is what made the difference in California. California had a two-day head start on social distancing over New York. New York has more deaths than Italy. Are you telling me — see, we’re not stupid here. And you aren’t, either. You’re telling me that a two-day head start on social distancing in California is the reason why there are so few deaths in California compared to New York?

The data is bad. The input data was bad. We told you this my first day back. When I found out that that U.K. modeler could change his outcome from 500,000 dead in the U.K. to 20,000 dead simply by factoring in social distancing, then what good was the first model? And if the model has that wide a variance, if you can input one data point and create this massive shift in outcomes on the model, what good’s the model?

But these people get to hold on to their expert status throughout all of these revisions. They haven’t been right from the get-go. But the doomsayers are never wrong because whatever ends up happening, they can claim credit for it because of their mistakes. “Well, yeah, of course we overshot, but because we overshot we scared the hell out of people, people social distanced, people stayed home. Of course our work is responsible for this.” It’s just the way it works. And everybody got scared. Can’t blame ’em. Everybody got scared into using the data that was trumpeted, put out.

But we are owed an explanation.

“One of President Donald Trump’s top medical advisers slashed projections for U.S. coronavirus deaths on Thursday, saying that only about 60,000 –” And, by the way, I don’t mean to say that 60,000 is insignificant. Those are people. They are loved ones. They are part of families. I’m not trying to be cavalier about it. I’m simply talking about the statistics and the numbers.

Remember, we started with 2.2 million, and they did that on purpose so that they could show great success, 2.2 million, now 60,000. Look at the great work. No. That’s not the way to look at because 2.2 was never an active, real number, and we shut down a $22 trillion economy because of it. And now the death is 60,000, which is on par with the number of flu deaths in America every year.

They told us that this week, remember, “This is gonna be… oh ho, the next two weeks it’s gonna be armageddon, it’s gonna be the apocalypse, it’s like gonna be bad.” And in these two weeks they’re revising everything down. Remember, they said these two weeks, you better expect the worst. We may not have a country after these next tweaks. There may not be enough people to go back work. It’s gonna be bad, it’s gonna be really, really bad out there.”

Now they’re revising the numbers down, the death numbers down during the apocalypse week. It’s a Bloomberg story, by the. “The falling projection, the result of aggressive social distancing behaviors Americans adopted to curb the spread of the virus, may accelerate Trump’s effort to develop a plan to urge Americans to leave their homes and return to work next month.”

I’ll tell you something I’m a little worried about. How many people are gonna be scared to leave their homes? How many Millennials are gonna be scared to death to leave? They’re scared to death anyway. They make up the snowflake generation. They’re scared by a shadow of a conservative on a college campus. It doesn’t even take a real conservative to scare ’em on a campus, just the shadow of one. And if they’re scared of a conservative shadow on a college campus, are they gonna be scared to go back to work? Be concerned. We’ll have to wait and see if it happens.

So here’s Dr. Fauci. “The real data…”

The real data? Oh, we’re talking about real data now?

“The real data are telling us that it is highly likely that we’re having a definite positive effect by this mitigation things that we’re doing — this physical separation — so I believe we are gonna see a downturn in that. And it looks more like the 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000. But having said that, we better be careful that we don’t say, ‘OK, we’re doing so well we can pull back.'”

Uh… I… (sigh) Folks, they’re gonna have to explain this, and I know how they’re gonna do it. The doomsayers are gonna tell us, “Hey,” they’re already setting the stage for doing it, “our policies, our requests for social distancing and all that made all the difference.” I don’t…

If we’re gonna say that, that means we have to trust the computer modeling data and that’s the data that’s been all over the place, 2.2 million, 200,000, 100,000, 240,000, 500,000 U.K. The numbers have been all over the place, revised down.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This