The Coronavirus, not the beer

Yes that is the update as of today.

I'm certainly hopeful they keep getting close to being correct as they revise dowward

No, you are missing the point. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just willfully misreading (EDIT: I see you followed up).

The Imperial College doc was reported as the precipitating model on 3/17.

US, UK coronavirus strategies shifted following UK epidemiologists' ominous report

I posted those model #s above:

Do nothing: 1,700,000 - 2,400,000 US deaths by October
Suppression*: 24,000 - 210,000 US deaths over 2 years

First state shutdowns started 3/19. I don't see any evidence that this model was widely off so far.

Later modeling may be off in some respects about resource needs based on weak assumptions about the bed:icu:death ratios (I honestly have no idea), but the decision to shutdown was based on these death numbers. And we seem to be right in line with the model.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the White House prediction of 100K - 240K deaths came from a blended model of IC and several others.

This looks like to be severely off from reality, and it appears they used Italy data to inform?

Hopefully this was in fact too high. An ungenerous view of the WH projections is they just took the high end ranges of the other models so they would look better if they hit the lower end projections.
 
Hopefully this was in fact too high. An ungenerous view of the WH projections is they just took the high end ranges of the other models so they would look better if they hit the lower end projections.

No one knows how the White House came up with those numbers. As noted in this article from 4 days ago. The White House has not even shared what time frame their estimates correspond to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...te-houses-240000-coronavirus-deaths-estimate/

Leading disease forecasters, whose research the White House used to conclude 100,000 to 240,000 people will die nationwide from the coronavirus, were mystified when they saw the administration’s projection this week.

The experts said they don’t challenge the numbers’ validity but that they don’t know how the White House arrived at them.

White House officials have refused to explain how they generated the figure.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully this was in fact too high. An ungenerous view of the WH projections is they just took the high end ranges of the other models so they would look better if they hit the lower end projections.

That is probably what they did bc the data that was happening didnt support that.

I was very disappointed by that (I see it as an easy way to justify these actions) as well as extended quarantine
 
If the White House had shared what time interval its 100,000 to 240,000 death number was supposed to occur, it would allow us (and more importantly the experts) to say whether it made any sense or not. They threw out this range. And never (as far as I know) indicated if it referred to the next two months, the next six months, all of 2020, or the next two years. Lacking that basic piece of information, it is impossible to evaluate the reasonableness of that range.
 
No one knows how the White House came up with those numbers. As noted in this article from 4 days ago. The White House has not even shared what time frame their estimates correspond to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...te-houses-240000-coronavirus-deaths-estimate/

Leading disease forecasters, whose research the White House used to conclude 100,000 to 240,000 people will die nationwide from the coronavirus, were mystified when they saw the administration’s projection this week.

The experts said they don’t challenge the numbers’ validity but that they don’t know how the White House arrived at them.

White House officials have refused to explain how they generated the figure.

Any numbers coming out of the WH would be purposely inflated or deflated to protect themselves. When they said if we do everything right we might be able to hold deaths down to between 100,00 to 250,000, my first thought was they might be inflating the numbers to make it look like they did a great job. Crazy conspiracy theory. Epidemiologists at the time said they had no idea where the WH got those numbers. I assumed they pulled them out of T's butt.
 
Last edited:
From the WaPo article:

The estimate appeared to be a rushed affair, said Marc Lipsitch, a leading epidemiologist and director of Harvard University’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics. “They contacted us, I think, on a Tuesday a week ago, and asked for answers and feedback by Thursday, basically 24 hours,” he said. “My initial response was we can’t do it that fast. But we ended up providing them some numbers responding to very specific scenarios.”

Other experts noted that the White House didn’t even explain the time period the death estimate supposedly captures — just the coming few months, or the year-plus it will take to deploy a vaccine.
 
Based on the last page or two seems many are coming around to a much better outcome than previously feared.

The administration needs to communicate a plan and a timeline asap on lifting this ****.
 
Based on the last page or two seems many are coming around to a much better outcome than previously feared.

The administration needs to communicate a plan and a timeline asap on lifting this ****.

plan and chosen one don't often cohabitate
 
Trump needs to make a decision based on the entire population not just the advice of Fauci and Birx.

It should not be driven by advice of just the medical people. I agree with you on that. Ideally you want some good economists involved. I would call on Stan Fischer to kind of be the economic equivalent of Fauci so there is some balance.
 
It should not be driven by advice of just the medical people. I agree with you on that. Ideally you want some good economists involved. I would call on Stan Fischer to kind of be the economic equivalent of Fauci so there is some balance.

Navarro
 
Based on the last page or two seems many are coming around to a much better outcome than previously feared.

The administration needs to communicate a plan and a timeline asap on lifting this ****.

I am all for plans and timelines, but these "better outcomes" are are only the current model predictions because of "this ****." If we go back to the "do nothing" or even the weaker "mitigation" paths, the death estimates shoot back up to the scarier numbers.

The lower range of the IC numbers is spread over 2 years and with lots of intervention time.
 
Day after day, the salesman turned president has encouraged coronavirus patients to try hydroxychloroquine with all of the enthusiasm of a real estate developer. The passing reference he makes to the possible dangers is usually overwhelmed by the full-throated endorsement. “What do you have to lose?” he asked five times on Sunday.

Bolstered by his trade adviser, a television doctor, Larry Ellison of Oracle and Rudolph W. Giuliani, a former New York mayor, Mr. Trump has seized on the drug as a miracle cure for the virus that has killed thousands and paralyzed American life. Along the way, he has prompted an international debate about a drug that many doctors in New York and elsewhere have been trying in desperation even without conclusive scientific studies.

Mr. Trump may ultimately be right, and physicians report anecdotal evidence that has provided hope. But it remains far from certain, and the president’s assertiveness in pressing the case over the advice of advisers like Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease specialist, has driven a wedge inside his coronavirus task force and has raised questions about his motives.

If hydroxychloroquine becomes an accepted treatment, several pharmaceutical companies stand to profit, including shareholders and senior executives with connections to the president. Mr. Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.

“I certainly understand why the president is pushing it,” said Dr. Joshua Rosenberg, the medical director at Brooklyn Hospital Center. “He’s the president of the United States. He has to project hope. And when you are in a situation without hope, things go very badly. So I’m not faulting him for pushing it even if there isn’t a lot of science behind it, because it is, at this point, the best, most available option for use.”

A senior physician at Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in Brooklyn, where doctors are not providing the drug, however, said the current demand was worrisome for patients on it chronically for rheumatic diseases. At St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, another doctor said his staff was giving it to coronavirus patients but criticized the president and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo for “cheerleading” the drug without proof. “False hope can be bad, too,” he said.

The professional organization that published a positive French study cited by Mr. Trump’s allies changed its mind in recent days. The International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy said, “The article does not meet the society’s expected standard.” Some hospitals in Sweden stopped providing hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus after reports of adverse side effects, according to Swedish news media.

But Mr. Cuomo told reporters on Monday that he would ask Mr. Trump to increase the federal supply of hydroxychloroquine to New York pharmacies, allowing the state to lift a limit on purchases. “There has been anecdotal evidence that it is promising,” Mr. Cuomo said, while noting the lack of a formal study.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-malaria-drug.html
 
Last edited:
[Tw]1247287993095897088[/tw]

Books are cooked. World governments ran a simulation to see how obedient a population would be if given bad news.

We have exceeded expectations.
 
I am all for plans and timelines, but these "better outcomes" are are only the current model predictions because of "this ****." If we go back to the "do nothing" or even the weaker "mitigation" paths, the death estimates shoot back up to the scarier numbers.

The lower range of the IC numbers is spread over 2 years and with lots of intervention time.

Maybe some state or country could volunteer to be the "do nothing" guinea pig so we can see how that works out.

Alabama? What you waiting for?
 
Back
Top