“The Covid Alarmists Were Closer to the Truth Than Anyone Else”

David Wallace-Wells highlights how initial pandemic alarmists were proven correct regarding the severity of COVID-19. The US death toll significantly exceeds initial predictions. Excess mortality figures confirm the alarmists' accuracy, surpassing even the highest estimates. Anthony Fauci's predictions, initially deemed hysterical, were far more accurate than initially perceived. Similarly, Neil Ferguson's model, though ultimately too high, provided a more realistic assessment than many others. The article extends this observation to political predictions regarding the Trump presidency. Those who predicted the overturning of Roe v. Wade and erosion of civil rights were also dismissed as alarmist. Their concerns, however, proved largely accurate. The author suggests a pattern of dismissing accurate, albeit alarming, predictions in both scientific and political realms. Ultimately, the piece underscores the importance of considering even alarming predictions seriously.