Very few papers will get published in peer review journals in a month or two. None of the projections that are being heavily relied upon have made it through peer review, so if you think all "unpublished" work is garbage then we are functioning in a complete data vacuum. That's just not the case.

Calling him a "fake" expert is pretty ridiculous. Experts can and do disagree all the time and just because his projection proved to be too low doesn't mean he lacks any credibility. Nobody's projections have been accurate at this point and, while deaths are certainly going to exceed 20K (probably 50K) at this point, if he ends up being five to ten times too low then how is he "fake" while the "experts" you believe were 20-80 times too high? Maybe he can still make valid points even if his early projections, which had to be based on evolving data and a mixed bag out of China and Italy, were not perfect.