We have been pointing out in our coverage of the coronavirus crisis, that there are still radically divergent points of view about this, among alternative sources who we have trusted in the past. Each side of the debate has marshalled studies and authorities which are far from unreasonable. Thus, we continue to strive to give balanced coverage. First, taking the coronapocalpyse line is Natural News.com, arguing that the coronavirus is much deadlier than the seasonal flu, and would have killed millions if not for lock down:
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-03-27-danger-coronavirus-10-times-more-deadly-than-influenza.html
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-03-27-coronavirus-would-have-killed-40-million-if-the-world-didnt-go-on-lockdown.html
“A new study points out that the outbreak could have caused 40 million deaths had it not been kept in check. The study comes from Imperial College London, where researchers estimated the potential scale of the coronavirus pandemic across the globe had measures not been put in place to stop its spread. The paper appeared in the 12the report of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modeling within the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and the Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics. “Our findings suggest that all countries face a choice between intensive and costly measures to suppress transmission or risk health systems becoming rapidly overwhelmed,” said the study’s co-author Dr. Patrick Walker, a member of the faculty of medicine at Imperial College London. “However, our results highlight that rapid, decisive and collective action now will save millions of lives in the next year,” Walker added. Currently, the latest estimates show that the coronavirus has infected over 531,000 people worldwide. However, according to the study, that number could have been as high as 7 billion people — about 90 percent of the world’s population — had it remained unchecked.”
