The numbers around coronavirus in America have been sensationalized to the point of making Americans near de-sensitized. And with those numbers comes continued politicizing of policy, and demands for a national response. But the data we have shows that a One-Size-Fits-All policy doesn’t work for America.

Models show us horrific death rates, and incomprehensible infection rates. Then, models show us much smaller rates of death and infection. What are we to trust? Researcher Neill Ferguson from Imperial College in London said deaths in the UK would top 500,000 and would be over 2 million in the United States. Politicos and pundits ran with those numbers, pushing fear and the need for national lockdowns.

A week or so later? Ferguson revised his numbers, claiming deaths in the UK would be somewhere around 20,000. The reason, he stated, was social distancing.

Just one problem with that, as was noted by former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. At the time of Ferguson’s revision, the lock down in the UK had only been in effect for two days. Also, a revision from 500K to 20K is not a revision. It’s an admission that your first numbers were simply wrong.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation said there could be between 100,000 and 240,000 deaths in the United States. The White House took these numbers seriously, and used them to devise their policies of shutdowns and social distancing. Recently, the IHME revised their models. Now, they say 60,000 to 124,000 people might die.

Yes, they cut their numbers in half. Supporters claim that it proves social distancing works. Others note, rightfully so, that social distancing was incorporated into their initial numbers: