The Coronavirus, not the beer

I ****ing hate that this administration, including Trump, says that we avoided a disaster because of social distancing.

It's a lie. The projections were a disaster and even with no mitigation we MIGHT have had 100k deaths.

But this would have of course been with a non crashed economy.
 
I'm still curious about this "all the models were wrroooooong" position sturg keeps repeating. I went back and re-read that Imperial college paper that supposedly snapped the admin into action with it's 2M dead prediction.

It predicted (converting some UK ratios to US for the suppression #s and ranges):

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

*Suppression here being:

(1) 14 days quarantine for household with symptomatic cases, 50% compliance,
(2) Closing of some Universities and Schools
(3) General social distancing
(4) And then staggered on-off variations for recurrences over the next 2 years.

I'll repeat again that I have no idea what will end up happening, but I'm unconvinced that this preliminary modelling hasn't born out. It looks like thus far we are basically following the "suppression" option and are (hopefully?) getting the corresponding results.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I'm still curious about this "all the models were wrroooooong" position sturg keeps repeating. I went back and re-read that Imperial college paper that supposedly snapped the admin into action with it's 2M dead prediction.

It predicted (converting some UK ratios to US for the suppression #s and ranges):

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

*Suppression here being:

(1) 14 days quarantine for household with symptomatic cases, 50% compliance,
(2) Closing of some Universities and Schools
(3) General social distancing
(4) And then staggered on-off variations for recurrences over the next 2 years.

I'll repeat again that I have no idea what will end up happening, but I'm unconvinced that this preliminary modelling hasn't born out. It looks like thus far we are basically following the "suppression" option and are (hopefully?) getting the corresponding results.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the IHME model that task force keeps referring to.

Is that Impereial College forecast before or after he revised it aggressively downward?
 
The IMHE model has us at like 80k deaths by August under the suppression stuff we are doing. That seems consistent.

EDIT: Or more like the range is 50-140k by August. Huge error bars in that thing.
 
Last edited:
See, was that hard to do? You can like a politician without thinking the are infallible. I think things would have been much worse without the shutdown. People were going to panic and take their own extreme measures regardless of what the government said which I think would have caused a worse impact on the economy. Might have been a couple quarters of -10% growth as opposed to one quarter of -30% growth.
 
sturg33 said:
Hospitalizations and ICU beds are consistently a third or 4th of what the model predicted
Click to expand...

Those are all being extrapolated from deaths; I wouldn't be surprised if that was based on very little data, but they were just doing their best.

Deaths are what I'm more concerned about. That's the reason we shut everything down.
 
Birx now saying she has confidence that we will come in under the most recent projection of 100-200k deaths.

Fauci now backing that up
 
Fauchi knows the models had terrible assumptions

Virus was less deadly and it was more contagious.

All a recipe for dreadful projections.
 
thethe said:
I ****ing hate that this administration, including Trump, says that we avoided a disaster because of social distancing.

It's a lie. The projections were a disaster and even with no mitigation we MIGHT have had 100k deaths.

But this would have of course been with a non crashed economy.
Click to expand...

Ok everyone know's you've lost it but this is just ****ing absurd.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Those are all being extrapolated from deaths; I wouldn't be surprised if that was based on very little data, but they were just doing their best.

Deaths are what I'm more concerned about. That's the reason we shut everything down.
Click to expand...

Deaths are still wrong by a factor of 4 at least
 
thethe said:
Its nice to go from 2m to 20k because they did what you say. 2m was a bull**** number based on bad assumptions.
Click to expand...

The assumption that we would do nothing. I, and the paper, agree that was unlikely to happen. Doesn't make it a "bull****" number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top