Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 12:59 PM Apr 2020

Starting to look like we may be under 100K US deaths given most up to date modeling.



A Sunday update of a prominent COVID-19 forecasting model suggests that fewer lives will be lost during the first wave of the coronavirus outbreak than previously thought.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) now predicts that 81,766 people will die of COVID-19 in the U.S. through early August. When the model was last updated, on April 2, it predicted 11,765 deaths more deaths, for a total of 93,531.

The model, which has been cited by the White House, relies on numbers from China, Italy, Spain, and areas around the U.S. The change in prediction is due to “a massive infusion of new data,” IHME director Dr. Christopher Murray said in a press release.


This is fantastic news. It's been clear to me for a while that the exponential trend was fading.


https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/coronavirus-model-now-predicts-many-fewer-u-s-deaths.html
121 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Starting to look like we may be under 100K US deaths given most up to date modeling. (Original Post) Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 OP
no testing is great!! stillcool Apr 2020 #1
+1. That's the beauty of Dr. Trump's plan dalton99a Apr 2020 #2
+1 It's just grand! crickets Apr 2020 #28
Yup. cwydro Apr 2020 #40
The number of deaths has a tangential relationship with the amount of testing. Blue_true Apr 2020 #84
How would lack of testing increase deaths? PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2020 #88
No, the test doesn't kill. Blue_true Apr 2020 #89
Plus, the untested are either not treated or not treated as soon. LACK OF TESTING KILLS... blitzen Apr 2020 #90
This message was self-deleted by its author blitzen Apr 2020 #91
But, the lack of testing means that Bettie Apr 2020 #99
Good point. By not letting the public know the true cause of death, Trump Blue_true Apr 2020 #100
We know better than to believe anything coming from the trump WH. brush Apr 2020 #3
Uh this is the University of Washington. Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #7
If the WH is pushing it, I have doubts. It's a projection, but since we don't have wide testing we.. brush Apr 2020 #14
We should all be skeptical, if for no other reason than... Eyeball_Kid Apr 2020 #78
It looks legit, I know, but really, they've been estimating in the 80 thousands since Squinch Apr 2020 #26
Cannot trust numbers. SheltieLover Apr 2020 #30
Operative Words: First Wave Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2020 #4
Good questions to inform future modeling. Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #8
Every epidemiologist who HASN'T thought of this needs to get another job. n/t Eyeball_Kid Apr 2020 #79
I'm sure the study authors agree with you Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #81
+1 Newest Reality Apr 2020 #27
Don't know why Republican sociopaths in congress refused Hortensis Apr 2020 #5
Sociopaths do what sociopaths do. n/t Eyeball_Kid Apr 2020 #80
Boy, I think you hit it. Very likely to be the bottom line. Hortensis Apr 2020 #86
That site has been touting those numbers for months. Squinch Apr 2020 #6
Given that this is an update from Sunday Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #9
Here's from about 2 weeks ago Squinch Apr 2020 #16
How does a report from two weeks ago prove they've been saying that for months? Captain Stern Apr 2020 #31
It was a link to the site that I happened to find quickly. People have been linking to this Squinch Apr 2020 #45
We want the duration for 'x' amount of deaths to be pushed out. Captain Stern Apr 2020 #49
Look at the link at sheltie's post: Squinch Apr 2020 #52
Article suggest social distancing and shelter in place orders are working Kaleva Apr 2020 #50
+1, we're no where near 70% compliance nationwide even in cities with SIP orders. NO WAY uponit7771 Apr 2020 #54
i figured that's why Trump said 100,000 to 200,000 Kablooie Apr 2020 #10
I'm sure it is Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #11
+1. "I kept the number to a minimum. Very, very low. I achieved the lowest deaths! Democrats and dalton99a Apr 2020 #13
What's sickening Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2020 #15
His people will fall for anything Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #18
It's not really the redhats I'm worried about Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2020 #21
That's exactly what I said the day he came out doc03 Apr 2020 #38
I Agree ProfessorGAC Apr 2020 #63
Through August. Voltaire2 Apr 2020 #12
We may indeed. But we will hit a really slow burn Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #17
Korea did massive testing and contact tracing. Voltaire2 Apr 2020 #24
We still can! Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #34
When? We've reached the point where Voltaire2 Apr 2020 #51
A couple points Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #69
Say it with me: DEEP SOUTH Brainfodder Apr 2020 #19
We will see. But numbers are declining in MANY areas. Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #20
Low Numbers Are Good kpete Apr 2020 #47
According to worldometers we're testing half the numbers that SK, HK, Germany etc tested uponit7771 Apr 2020 #56
That's unknown when we're at sub par per capita testing uponit7771 Apr 2020 #55
Most deaths are being under reported. imo clutterbox1830 Apr 2020 #22
That's why trump said up to 240,000...when it comes in lower he will take all the credit spanone Apr 2020 #23
People fall for this stuff when it comes to a couple hundred dollars in a furniture sale greenjar_01 Apr 2020 #25
Physical distancing is working. yardwork Apr 2020 #29
Yes it is. This is good news. underpants Apr 2020 #41
Only if we keep it up spinbaby Apr 2020 #82
Not in Washington. We're following Pres. Samuel L Jackson's orders. nolabear Apr 2020 #94
I don't think so. Newest Reality Apr 2020 #32
This defacto7 Apr 2020 #46
What interest does UWash have in propaganda? Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #71
Why do you think Trump picked that number? nt doc03 Apr 2020 #33
Until what date? I mean, no one knows when this will end because sub par per capita testing uponit7771 Apr 2020 #35
Which Trump will try to claim credit for Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2020 #36
Much more inclined to believe these #s! SheltieLover Apr 2020 #37
Wow! On March 20, they almost exactly estimated the death toll as of today! Squinch Apr 2020 #48
Yup SheltieLover Apr 2020 #53
Working the math out, that's 102,000 dead just from the infections that had occurred by Squinch Apr 2020 #62
This should be its own OP !! This guy was RIGHT DEAD ON WITH 90% of Calculations uponit7771 Apr 2020 #57
that is the pig's bet that we will come in well under 100K and he will look good. Thomas Hurt Apr 2020 #39
Georgia and Louisiana are just getting started Fiendish Thingy Apr 2020 #42
Good luck with this . cwydro Apr 2020 #43
Good luck to us all yes. Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #70
Optimistic but plausible europe numbers this week may help validate their model. logme Apr 2020 #44
Under-reported down because coroners cannot verify -- will need analysis like PR data later JT45242 Apr 2020 #58
Gavin acted quickly and enacted shelter in place in California MenloParque Apr 2020 #59
Revisionist history dpibel Apr 2020 #102
1) We are undercounting both sickness & death 2) This is far from over Hekate Apr 2020 #60
Seattle is projected to peak on the 11th ismnotwasm Apr 2020 #61
I think so too, hopefully. The original CDC estimates were up to 2 Million. Hoyt Apr 2020 #64
This is all about HIGH numbers so that gives bluestarone Apr 2020 #65
kudos to the Dem governors leading the charge on stay at home orders. Takket Apr 2020 #66
To my surprise Dewine was right there at the start of it Tribetime Apr 2020 #68
I am afraid we are still on track for 100,000 dead by the end of this month. mackdaddy Apr 2020 #67
When I first read your thread title I said to myself HarlanPepper Apr 2020 #72
It is what is Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #73
I assume no one does HarlanPepper Apr 2020 #75
I think for some Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #77
Good insightful points the second of which I had not considered HarlanPepper Apr 2020 #83
Not happy with any dead, let alone 100,000. scrabblequeen40 Apr 2020 #74
I hope the same for you. Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #76
We will never know how many died of this shit. albacore Apr 2020 #85
Don the Con has blood on his hands whether its 10 or 100,000 malaise Apr 2020 #87
Regardless of the ultimate US death toll, the comparision that matters is deaths per million pop. blitzen Apr 2020 #92
Due to various age structures & other factors, mortality rates will not enable proper comparisons logme Apr 2020 #93
Their model was adjusted downward again today FBaggins Apr 2020 #95
That I don't agree with Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #98
They appear to have been about spot on for today FBaggins Apr 2020 #103
Eh looks like they'll be 300-400 under by the end of the day Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #104
The numbers don't appear to have changed FBaggins Apr 2020 #106
Two more days essentially spot on. FBaggins Apr 2020 #107
We shall see. They revised upward slightly today Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #108
They revised by a couple percent FBaggins Apr 2020 #119
What is the point of projecting deaths from a first wave? As soon as we let up on social distancing pnwmom Apr 2020 #117
That model feels extremely optimistic Azathoth Apr 2020 #96
People have been saying that for a couple weeks now FBaggins Apr 2020 #97
Let's talk again after this thing is done with those below the Mason-Dixon line/ LaurenOlimina Apr 2020 #101
The comments on threads like these often make DU appear as if we are cheering for more deaths A HERETIC I AM Apr 2020 #105
I think we're having success flattening the curve, but these projections are low, imo fishwax Apr 2020 #109
Model adjusted slightly upward todat fwiw Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #110
Yes ! Hope we go a lot lower ...45,000 Laura PourMeADrink Apr 2020 #111
I've been seeing such possibility's elsewhere. I'm desperate for them to be true. herding cats Apr 2020 #112
The model assumes we are socially distancing till August Loki Liesmith Apr 2020 #113
We can expect that to change for the worse again Mariana Apr 2020 #114
They will only stay low BGBD Apr 2020 #115
What the heck is this "first wave"? The question is how many people die before a vaccine pnwmom Apr 2020 #116
How are they supposed to know when a vaccine will be developed? FBaggins Apr 2020 #118
This was optimistic. :( DangerousRhythm Jul 2020 #120
Eh their model was badly broken Loki Liesmith Jul 2020 #121

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
84. The number of deaths has a tangential relationship with the amount of testing.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 04:07 PM
Apr 2020

If the virus has heavily infected an area, lack of testing could increase deaths.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
89. No, the test doesn't kill.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 04:53 PM
Apr 2020

By not testing adequately, there would be little sense of how many people are walking around transmitting, so there would likely not be actions like stay at home orders, allowing more people to get infected, some of whom die.

blitzen

(4,572 posts)
90. Plus, the untested are either not treated or not treated as soon. LACK OF TESTING KILLS...
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 05:00 PM
Apr 2020

the Lancet study from last week emphasized this in no uncertain terms. I and others posted links to that study several times. I don't feel like doing it again but will dig up a link if someone wants to see it.

Not to mention that lack of testing is and obstacle to tracking and containment, which we could have done--and there would have been far fewer deaths. LACK OF TESTING KILLS.

Response to blitzen (Reply #90)

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
99. But, the lack of testing means that
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 03:09 PM
Apr 2020

many deaths are not attributed to Covid19.

That's a win for Trump and his minions.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
100. Good point. By not letting the public know the true cause of death, Trump
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 04:34 PM
Apr 2020

does keep the SARS-COV-19 numbers lower than they should be.

brush

(53,474 posts)
14. If the WH is pushing it, I have doubts. It's a projection, but since we don't have wide testing we..
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:20 PM
Apr 2020

don't really know how many are infected and passing it on to others so how can they project? Florida, Lousiana, Mich—they're all blowing up.

I have to tell you I'm skeptical.

Eyeball_Kid

(7,410 posts)
78. We should all be skeptical, if for no other reason than...
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 03:52 PM
Apr 2020

... to assume that deaths will zero out after this FIRST WAVE of the virus. Remember, if there is no vaccine, the virus will erupt over and over. It will mutate and it will devour lives well beyond August. Without everyone getting tested on demand (Remember, because someone tests negative today doesn't mean that they can't get infected TOMORROW.), we know next to nothing about CV-19. We don't know its limitations, we don't know its behavior.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
26. It looks legit, I know, but really, they've been estimating in the 80 thousands since
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:50 PM
Apr 2020

mid March, before social distancing etc. And their numbers haven't changed much since then.

I begin to suspect that they are something that has been set up to confirm the numbers that result from no testing, and that Filthy Donnie and republicans will quote those numbers for years to come.

Forward thinking of them.

But I keep seeing this site quoted, and it always shows insanely low numbers, and it always gets people excited.

I don't believe it.

SheltieLover

(57,073 posts)
30. Cannot trust numbers.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:54 PM
Apr 2020

Not enough testing.

Big push on on to "reopen country." Chase traders were ordered to report back to trading floor unless they could produce note.

No. Just no!

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
4. Operative Words: First Wave
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:04 PM
Apr 2020

Also, where's the increased testing? How will we know who and when is safe to go back out? Once everybody starts going back out, then what?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
5. Don't know why Republican sociopaths in congress refused
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:05 PM
Apr 2020

to take action to contain the disease, but wonder how the current estimated cost-benefit ratios are looking to them. Seems like a lot more would be lost economically than gained. Or would it? What were/are their goals?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
86. Boy, I think you hit it. Very likely to be the bottom line.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 04:16 PM
Apr 2020

They'll have secret "rationales," and those were what I was thinking of. That old search for "why," and "there must be a reason."

But.

Captain Stern

(2,197 posts)
31. How does a report from two weeks ago prove they've been saying that for months?
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:54 PM
Apr 2020

It doesn't.

The link in the post you linked to predicts about 81k deaths in our country by July. The link the current OP shows has roughly the same number of deaths predicted by August. That's a big difference. (Not as big a difference as there is between months and weeks, but a big difference nevertheless)

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
45. It was a link to the site that I happened to find quickly. People have been linking to this
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:05 PM
Apr 2020

site for while now and the number they have predicted - even before social distancing - has never changed by much.

And why would they change the duration of their estimate? You don't find that odd?

Captain Stern

(2,197 posts)
49. We want the duration for 'x' amount of deaths to be pushed out.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:11 PM
Apr 2020

That's the whole darn point of what we're trying to do with social distancing.

The whole point of all this is to spread the amount of infections, and deaths, over as long a period of time as possible.

That appears to be what's happening.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
52. Look at the link at sheltie's post:
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:17 PM
Apr 2020
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13247629

On March 20, they almost exactly estimated today's total death toll. They are accounting for social distancing.

I think their numbers are much more dependable than the OP's site.

Kaleva

(36,146 posts)
50. Article suggest social distancing and shelter in place orders are working
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:14 PM
Apr 2020

"Though the update of the model appears to be good news, at least for now, Murray counseled caution. “If social-distancing measures are relaxed or not implemented, the U.S. will see greater death tolls, the death peak will be later, the burden on hospitals will be much greater, and the economic costs will continue to grow,” he said."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/coronavirus-model-now-predicts-many-fewer-u-s-deaths.html

Kablooie

(18,571 posts)
10. i figured that's why Trump said 100,000 to 200,000
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:09 PM
Apr 2020

They told him it would probably be under 100,000 so he inflated the numbers so the actual numbers will look like a great success.

dalton99a

(81,068 posts)
13. +1. "I kept the number to a minimum. Very, very low. I achieved the lowest deaths! Democrats and
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:14 PM
Apr 2020

Obama wanted the number to be maximum!!!!"

Just watch

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
15. What's sickening
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:20 PM
Apr 2020

is that some people will fall for it. Nobody wants a high death toll (at all) but we can't let Trump evade accountability for his role in mismanaging his part in this once this is all said and done.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
21. It's not really the redhats I'm worried about
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:39 PM
Apr 2020

More like the low-information voters whom might be persuaded to believe it.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
38. That's exactly what I said the day he came out
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:59 PM
Apr 2020

with his death chart. I think they inflated the numbers so anything less he can claim he stopped it.

ProfessorGAC

(64,425 posts)
63. I Agree
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:46 PM
Apr 2020

The numbers the real experts are predicting with measures taken are probably 75-100k.
So, for DOLTUS, 100K is the bottom, now.

Voltaire2

(12,626 posts)
12. Through August.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:13 PM
Apr 2020

There are lots of people who think we will have multiple waves of the pandemic until we reach some level of herd immunity from either exposure or vaccination.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
17. We may indeed. But we will hit a really slow burn
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:34 PM
Apr 2020

If you look at S. Korea's numbers.

If this study as at all right it gives us a real shot to mimic them and get back to mostly normal sooner rather than later.

Voltaire2

(12,626 posts)
51. When? We've reached the point where
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:16 PM
Apr 2020

the scale of untested infections would make it massively difficult to apply.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
69. A couple points
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 03:01 PM
Apr 2020

1) Implement on level of state or large municipality. If each zone has ~1k new cases a day or less (S. Korea’s) approach should work (that’s ~their worst day).

2) treat import from other cities/states as a noise process.

Infection is a memory less process for the most part so the recent history of large numbers of cases shouldn’t have outside impact. Even if not perfect policy should make a dent.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
20. We will see. But numbers are declining in MANY areas.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:39 PM
Apr 2020

More of the country may have been practicing social distancing without any kind of state-level official guidance.

kpete

(71,901 posts)
47. Low Numbers Are Good
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:08 PM
Apr 2020

Americans are staying home


potus has little to do with that

but he will take credit anyway

& the media will fall in step


Stay well & sane
kp

clutterbox1830

(395 posts)
22. Most deaths are being under reported. imo
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:42 PM
Apr 2020

A number of coroners are listing the death due to COVID-19 due to lack of testing available.

spanone

(135,635 posts)
23. That's why trump said up to 240,000...when it comes in lower he will take all the credit
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:43 PM
Apr 2020

meanwhile tests are STILL hard to find and I credit that directly to the 'president'.

 

greenjar_01

(6,477 posts)
25. People fall for this stuff when it comes to a couple hundred dollars in a furniture sale
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:47 PM
Apr 2020

I don't think a whole lot of people are going to say, "What, only 62,000 dead? Great job, in that case! Could have been worse!"

Most will have known somebody who died. If that's the grift Trump is running, it's a poor grift indeed.

spinbaby

(15,073 posts)
82. Only if we keep it up
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 04:01 PM
Apr 2020

Im hunkered down, but I know too many people who “need” to go to Starbucks for a daily cappuccino or “need” to visit six stores to get their favorite kind of canned soup, etc, etc.

nolabear

(41,915 posts)
94. Not in Washington. We're following Pres. Samuel L Jackson's orders.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 06:13 PM
Apr 2020

And the UW is the first place to study the effects of the pandemic, the first to have a peak and to marshal resources in a changing manner as we go along and they’re working night and day to try to develop accurate projections according to data that changes.

Newest Reality

(12,712 posts)
32. I don't think so.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 01:55 PM
Apr 2020

Extrapolating like that is optimistic and might even be propaganda in that sense. Calm the masses and the markets.

While we would all hope that the carnage of this virus will be low and diminish quickly, we really aren't even seeing the big picture yet due to the amount of tests and the bigger factor of spread into Red and rural areas and how many deaths that might cause. There are various factors that play into the mortality rate of that demographic in a case like this and that includes, age, general health, access to health care, obesity and chronic diseases.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
62. Working the math out, that's 102,000 dead just from the infections that had occurred by
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:44 PM
Apr 2020

March 23. That is the day NYC schools closed, so I figure that's the day we began to slow down. So figuring from there that the doubling takes twice as long (I think right now it's doubling about every 8 days, but that took some time for us to get to.)

That means it's doubled twice more since March 23, which brings us to over 400,000 deaths.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
42. Georgia and Louisiana are just getting started
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:02 PM
Apr 2020

Let’s look at the numbers in 2-4 weeks and see how the South is doing...

logme

(27 posts)
44. Optimistic but plausible europe numbers this week may help validate their model.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:05 PM
Apr 2020

I noticed the continuous decrease of total death projected and kept my fingers crossed. Although I was slightly skeptical at first due to the tragic acceleration we had in Europe last week.

I just checked their data for the countries that have been battling a large scale pandemic the longest ( France, Italy, Spain ) and there are equally optimistic, when the death in Italy suddenly reached 15000, I really thought they would end up with a death toll between 20-30 thousand at the very least but their model ( that has been pretty accurate over the last few days ) anticipate a stabilization around 20 thousand.

Again finger crossed, and lets not relax the prevention efforts. It is not done yet.

JT45242

(2,173 posts)
58. Under-reported down because coroners cannot verify -- will need analysis like PR data later
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:26 PM
Apr 2020

Let's be brutally honest here. The only reason why the official numbers are so low is that countless (literally uncounted) people have died from coronavirus and were no tested to confirm the diagnosis. On top of that, there are reports that many who had tested positive are not being recorded.

This will only become apparent much later when some people who do statistical modeling will be able to look at the normal death rate and compare it to the data for spring and summer 2020. Only then will we have an 'approximate' but close number similar to the way that they modeled the deaths caused by the hurricanes in Puerto Rico.

If we do not scream this loud enough, the lies will get larger... see I told you under 100,000 would be a success -- more deadly than Vietnam Private Bone Spurs is not a success -- but the sheeple listening to Fox and RW Radio will believe it. Then around 2022 some statistical wizard will have worked out that coronavirus deaths were likely XXX times larger than reported because the death rate went from Y to Z during those 6 months.

Fox and the RW Radio Limbaugh niuts will decry it as propaganda against the GOP and then say that you can't trust math or scientists anyway.

This is the plan -- lie tell bigger lies -- cover it up in the hopes that the sheeple will keep McConnell and at least 50 other (R) in the senate.
Of course, killing off democratic voters in Wisconsin will likely help that plan as well. But that is a different rant.



MenloParque

(505 posts)
59. Gavin acted quickly and enacted shelter in place in California
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:37 PM
Apr 2020

While dumb fucks elsewhere where partying it up during Mardi Gras and partying on the beaches. We had some Darwin Award participants also, but many have been publicly shamed. BUT we are successfully flattened the curve - so far. We have sent out ventilators to states with more Darwin Award participants.

dpibel

(2,803 posts)
102. Revisionist history
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 05:59 PM
Apr 2020

End of Mardi Gras: February 25.

Newsome calls for shelter in place: March 19.

In what world is March 19 "during Mardi Gras."

I entirely commend Newsome for acting early. It clearly has saved lives.

But pretending that the same information and advice was available in February as in mid-March is fatuous nonsense.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
64. I think so too, hopefully. The original CDC estimates were up to 2 Million.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:48 PM
Apr 2020

So, we might as well get ready for trumpsters declaring victory.

Fact is, if infections and deaths stopped tomorrow, trump would still be a failure at this and more.

bluestarone

(16,722 posts)
65. This is all about HIGH numbers so that gives
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:53 PM
Apr 2020

The tRUMP team a permit to KILL 75 to 80,0000 citizens and SAY we all did a great job!

mackdaddy

(1,520 posts)
67. I am afraid we are still on track for 100,000 dead by the end of this month.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 02:55 PM
Apr 2020

The rate of increase has slowed some, but we have been seeing a 10 fold increase every 14 days which would put us over 100k by the 21st of this month. With some of the early peaking that may take a bit longer to reach the 100k deaths.

But with so many Southern states and Rural areas that have done little to nothing for social distancing until the last few days, we are just a week or two from them blowing up.

Also even if we "peak" in NY and Washington, it will be many days of deaths at ore near that peak number before the number of deaths per day really drop off.

We are not getting out of this Hell for some time yet.

 

HarlanPepper

(2,042 posts)
72. When I first read your thread title I said to myself
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 03:17 PM
Apr 2020

“Yeah, he’s going to be attacked.”

I come back an hour later and sure enough! DU’s own pop up chief epidemiologist-panic addict-doomsayer even managed 5-6 posts in the thread.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
73. It is what is
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 03:40 PM
Apr 2020

80k preventable deaths is nightmarish enough. I have no interest in living through an apocalypse.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
77. I think for some
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 03:51 PM
Apr 2020

there is a bit of a thrill in presuming we are in a Mad Max moment.

I'm not sure it's conscious but the idea that we can ever get back to "business as usual" might be construed as a defense of a status quo they want overturned.

scrabblequeen40

(334 posts)
74. Not happy with any dead, let alone 100,000.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 03:43 PM
Apr 2020

I hope someone you know isn't in that number the GOP is celebrating.

blitzen

(4,572 posts)
92. Regardless of the ultimate US death toll, the comparision that matters is deaths per million pop.
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 05:05 PM
Apr 2020

That will tell the story of how the US fared in relation to other nations.

This "much lower death toll than projected" is a bullshit stat that Trump will try to exploit all the way to re-election. The media is falling for it big time today.

logme

(27 posts)
93. Due to various age structures & other factors, mortality rates will not enable proper comparisons
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 06:03 PM
Apr 2020

Hi, actually deaths per millions pop will not be much more "accurate" either.
+ We will not be able to know exactly what the main other co-morbidity factors are right away.

The only thing we know currently is that the more systematic the tests are ( or if not possible, the more respected the confinement is), the better a country should fair.

In Europe only Germany was lucky enough to have the pertinent industrial resources still located on its territory enabling them to avoid almost any PE shortage. Even then, they are also struggling to fully contain the pandemic.

The percentage of elderly is one other important criteria. If you look at Europe : France, Spain and Italy have the highest density of centenarians in the EU.

Overall you can therefore expect many European countries to have a higher death rate per x inhabitant than Asia or America.

Note > Share of the population over 80 ( countries with early cases of covi-19 in bold ) :
- 5% : Italy, Germany, Spain, France
- 3% : Canada, United States
- 2% : Korea, Rep, Russian Federation
- 1% or less : China


It does not mean that proper planning and management will not improve or decreasing the odds but the age structures, density of the population and their habits ( such as the prevalence of smokers for instance ) will certainly result in huge variation in mortality rates.

A higher mortality will not necessarily mean a lacking management of the crisis. For instance you could say that many of the elderly dying from covid in Italy are people who tend to already be dead ( at a younger age ) in many countries such as the US ( life expectancy Italy = 82.5 vs USA = 78.7 ).

The exact impact of the covid and the proper evaluation of each county policies will take at least a year or two probably more. It will still be up to debate during the US election for instance.



Nota bene : It is important, to understand that the capacity of some countries to maintain what is know seen as strategic industrial asset & production on their territory is not the result of better insights or preparedness either but rather a by-product of random industrial specialization.

How governments then mobilized said resources & responded to shortages is what make a difference.

Some countries due to their resources & of the specificity of their population should fare better then others.
The USA as one of the youngest among the advanced industrial nations still have a clear advantage, no matter how much you feel trump screw it up.



Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
98. That I don't agree with
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 03:02 PM
Apr 2020

They are going to undershoot today significantly. They did not update their parameters yesterday fwiw. Error bars are gigantic too.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
103. They appear to have been about spot on for today
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 09:51 PM
Apr 2020

Yes... they have large margins for error at the high and low end... but if anything, that's because some recent numbers have fallen out of the bottom of their bars (particularly in hospitalizations and ICU projections).

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
104. Eh looks like they'll be 300-400 under by the end of the day
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 10:00 PM
Apr 2020

That’s what, about 20% error?
It’s not awful but need to see if they undershoot again tomorrow.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
106. The numbers don't appear to have changed
Thu Apr 9, 2020, 06:50 AM
Apr 2020

Still 1,940 vs a projected 1,903.

Today is projected at 2,037

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
108. We shall see. They revised upward slightly today
Sat Apr 11, 2020, 12:08 AM
Apr 2020

And looks like they back fit the older predictions so I can’t compare the numbers now sadly.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
119. They revised by a couple percent
Mon Apr 13, 2020, 11:53 AM
Apr 2020

I'd say there's enough data to evaluate how the ~60k projection is tracking. They were not 300-400 under on Wednesday and did not undershoot substantially on any of the days since then... in fact, they have been slightly high with one exception (~125 off on the 10th).

Yesterday's figure (1,528) came in well below their projection (1,910) and while today's figure (projected at 1,895) is still compiling, New York reportedly dropped another 10% from yesterday and none of the states I've seen so far have topped yesterday's toll. They didn't project numbers in the 1500 range until the 19th or 20th. Anything close to that could cause another downward revision.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
117. What is the point of projecting deaths from a first wave? As soon as we let up on social distancing
Sat Apr 11, 2020, 01:41 AM
Apr 2020

people will start dying again.

Azathoth

(4,603 posts)
96. That model feels extremely optimistic
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 02:24 PM
Apr 2020

Last edited Wed Apr 8, 2020, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

They have us peaking in two or three days and then being down to almost no cases/deaths by the beginning of May.

Italy has been on full countrywide lockdown for over a month and their deaths are just *slowly* crossing the peak now. And most of their cases are centralized in one region.

Much of this country still isn't fully shut down. And we have out of control outbreaks from coast to coast.

The peaks they're fitting to our numbers seem awfully narrow.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
97. People have been saying that for a couple weeks now
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 02:39 PM
Apr 2020

Yet their projections keep getting revised lower as actual numbers on the ground come in well below their projections.

IOW... they haven't been optimistic so far.

A HERETIC I AM

(24,320 posts)
105. The comments on threads like these often make DU appear as if we are cheering for more deaths
Wed Apr 8, 2020, 10:07 PM
Apr 2020

And I know that's not the case, far from it.

But someone from the 'Fox News' end of things, could take a cursory look at a thread like this and say we are dismissing good news.

I say, no, that's not it all all.

I think most of us realize attempting to nail down any real figures at this point in the pandemic is a fools errand, and are offering logic to temper the glee.

That just struck me, that's all. We often wonder how and why the opposition gets some of the bullshit "They're cheering for defeat" kind of nonsense.

This thread, read uncarefully, is a good example.

fishwax

(29,146 posts)
109. I think we're having success flattening the curve, but these projections are low, imo
Sat Apr 11, 2020, 12:33 AM
Apr 2020

for many reasons, including that we're still not testing as much as we should and we're likely already drastically underestimating current casualties.

herding cats

(19,549 posts)
112. I've been seeing such possibility's elsewhere. I'm desperate for them to be true.
Sat Apr 11, 2020, 12:40 AM
Apr 2020

It appears if we take it seriously from here forward they will be. While, I'm not sure about my state (some nutty statements today) I'm feeling better about many others.

Good luck to all my fellow Americans!

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
113. The model assumes we are socially distancing till August
Sat Apr 11, 2020, 01:05 AM
Apr 2020

But it only computes deaths till August. The moment we stop...bam. Unless summer does have sone positive effect .

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
114. We can expect that to change for the worse again
Sat Apr 11, 2020, 01:13 AM
Apr 2020

once Republican governors start lifting the closure orders prematurely.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
116. What the heck is this "first wave"? The question is how many people die before a vaccine
Sat Apr 11, 2020, 01:40 AM
Apr 2020

is developed, not how many die between now and August.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
118. How are they supposed to know when a vaccine will be developed?
Mon Apr 13, 2020, 11:39 AM
Apr 2020

The purpose of their projections is to inform public policy decision making. They're reportedly developing multiple models to evaluate what the impact would be of various flavors of "opening up", but I don't see how anyone could model what you're looking for.

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
121. Eh their model was badly broken
Sun Jul 26, 2020, 10:37 AM
Jul 2020

It presumed we’d all lock down and social distance till August. That was obviously a bad assumption.

That said what does seem interesting is that the exponential trend always peters out quickly. Communities start getting hit with consequences and they adopt better practices. Then things get better and they forget. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Starting to look like we ...