In the beginning the death toll coming out of China and Italy was 5% and higher. It did not encompass a breakdown by age group. It was also calculated by taking a percentage of those who dies out of known cases. Early on, it was clear that it was highly contagious but asymptomatic spread was not known. So the death mortality percentage was inflated because there were many more unknown cases in the public.

It’s a little beside the point though. At the time of the interview, the best info available at the time was 5%.

So the question is not whether it was entirely accurate or not, but that given he was advised and believed it would be more deadly overall, why didn’t he act on it? Why didn’t he fairly warn us? Why lie, play politics with aid, and stoke division over any measure that might have helped? This wasn’t ineptitude or incompetence, it was negligent malice and willful dereliction of duty.

Always hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. We’re extremely lucky those early numbers were off because they could have just as easily been spot on. He clearly wouldn’t have cared either way.

That should bother people. Best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Don’t forget that when you vote.