Good News: Coronavirus Death Estimates Keep Shrinking
From March 26 to April 8, the number of projected deaths from coronavirus dropped from 81,000 to 60,000. What should we do with such information?
NICK GILLESPIE | 4.10.2020 12:30 PM
(SIPA/Newscom)
One of the most striking developments over the past two weeks is how quickly the estimates of death and hospitalizations from COVID-19 are being reduced.
The University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) is the most influential modeler of the novel coronavirus in the United States, with White House officials and other public health professionals using the group's numbers to plan strategy and policy. On March 26, IHME predicted that if current social-distancing policies stayed in place, there would likely be 81,000 COVID-19 deaths in the United States by June 1. In its most recent projection, from April 8, it concluded that there would 60,145 deaths, a figure, as Fareed Zakaria writes in The Washington Post, "on par with the number of people estimated to have died of the flu in the 2019-2020 season."
National Review's Andrew McCarthy notes that IHME has been revising its estimates for hospital beds (including ones in intensive care units [ICU]) and ventilators as well:
On April 8, IHME reduced the total number of hospital beds it had predicted would be needed nationally by a remarkable 166,890—down to 95,202 from the 262,092 it had predicted less than a week earlier (i.e., it was nearly two-thirds off). The ICU projection over that same week was cut in half: to 19,816 on April 8, down from 39,727 on April 2. The projected need for ventilators also fell by nearly half, to 16,845 from 31,782.
McCarthy persuasively argues that "the model on which the government is relying is simply unreliable." The IHME is not simply changing its predictions about the future (which one would assume it would do as people's behavior changes and as new data become available). It's failing to describe present reality. From Zakaria:
On March 30, University of Washington researchers projected that California would need 4,800 beds on April 3. In fact, the state needed 2,200. The same model projected that Louisiana would need 6,400; in fact, it used only 1,700. Even New York, the most stressed system in the country, used only 15,000 beds against a projection of 58,000.
Governments at all levels have pointed to dire forecasts (remember the CDC's worst-case scenario of 1.7 million deaths?) to lock down the economy, which has shrunk by 30 percent over the past month, and to help pass historically high spending bills. Residents in Kentucky and other states who are diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19 are being trackedusing ankle bracelets and other invasive technologies. Faulty projections of the need for hospital resources "has meant that patients with other pressing illnesses might have been denied care—or not sought care—for no good reason," writes Zakaria.
In short, we have completely upended American society on the basis on projections and descriptions that are unstable and inaccurate. There's no question that the estimated fatality rate and need for hospital beds are coming down partly because of social distancing and other changes in behavior. But some portion of the slippage in the IHME numbers is surely because the models, which presume social-distancing rules stay in place, are flawed. It's understandable why federal, state, and local governments have acted in such extreme fashion, especially in the wake of the CDC's disastrous early failure to implement accurate testing and the explosion of cases in New York, a state that was slow to action.
To date, public health concerns, especially the predicted number of dead people, have pushed all other considerations, including the effect on economic activity and the massive new amounts of government debt, to the side. But as the death projections come down and the actual hospitalizations come in lower than expected, we need to start factoring in other concerns that will allow us to return to something approaching normalcy.
From March 26 to April 8, the number of projected deaths from coronavirus dropped from 81,000 to 60,000. What should we do with such information?
NICK GILLESPIE | 4.10.2020 12:30 PM
(SIPA/Newscom)
One of the most striking developments over the past two weeks is how quickly the estimates of death and hospitalizations from COVID-19 are being reduced.
The University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) is the most influential modeler of the novel coronavirus in the United States, with White House officials and other public health professionals using the group's numbers to plan strategy and policy. On March 26, IHME predicted that if current social-distancing policies stayed in place, there would likely be 81,000 COVID-19 deaths in the United States by June 1. In its most recent projection, from April 8, it concluded that there would 60,145 deaths, a figure, as Fareed Zakaria writes in The Washington Post, "on par with the number of people estimated to have died of the flu in the 2019-2020 season."
National Review's Andrew McCarthy notes that IHME has been revising its estimates for hospital beds (including ones in intensive care units [ICU]) and ventilators as well:
On April 8, IHME reduced the total number of hospital beds it had predicted would be needed nationally by a remarkable 166,890—down to 95,202 from the 262,092 it had predicted less than a week earlier (i.e., it was nearly two-thirds off). The ICU projection over that same week was cut in half: to 19,816 on April 8, down from 39,727 on April 2. The projected need for ventilators also fell by nearly half, to 16,845 from 31,782.
McCarthy persuasively argues that "the model on which the government is relying is simply unreliable." The IHME is not simply changing its predictions about the future (which one would assume it would do as people's behavior changes and as new data become available). It's failing to describe present reality. From Zakaria:
On March 30, University of Washington researchers projected that California would need 4,800 beds on April 3. In fact, the state needed 2,200. The same model projected that Louisiana would need 6,400; in fact, it used only 1,700. Even New York, the most stressed system in the country, used only 15,000 beds against a projection of 58,000.
Governments at all levels have pointed to dire forecasts (remember the CDC's worst-case scenario of 1.7 million deaths?) to lock down the economy, which has shrunk by 30 percent over the past month, and to help pass historically high spending bills. Residents in Kentucky and other states who are diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19 are being trackedusing ankle bracelets and other invasive technologies. Faulty projections of the need for hospital resources "has meant that patients with other pressing illnesses might have been denied care—or not sought care—for no good reason," writes Zakaria.
In short, we have completely upended American society on the basis on projections and descriptions that are unstable and inaccurate. There's no question that the estimated fatality rate and need for hospital beds are coming down partly because of social distancing and other changes in behavior. But some portion of the slippage in the IHME numbers is surely because the models, which presume social-distancing rules stay in place, are flawed. It's understandable why federal, state, and local governments have acted in such extreme fashion, especially in the wake of the CDC's disastrous early failure to implement accurate testing and the explosion of cases in New York, a state that was slow to action.
To date, public health concerns, especially the predicted number of dead people, have pushed all other considerations, including the effect on economic activity and the massive new amounts of government debt, to the side. But as the death projections come down and the actual hospitalizations come in lower than expected, we need to start factoring in other concerns that will allow us to return to something approaching normalcy.
^ well, 60,000 will be here soon
They also describe it as "on par" with the flu.
some of those covid numbers have to be the flu don't they?
accidents should be down and homicide is probably down in NYC
the 3,000 extra deaths over this period is certainly concerning and not normal, those are most certainly covid caused...that increase cannot be explained by anything than a new 2020 threat to health.
I merely think the numbers may be inflated a bit
If anybody has any reason for the discrepancy other than now attributing many of the to be expected deaths as covid now I am all ears.
The below data could be fake, I am also open to that.
So you are thinking that some of the expected deaths by way of strokes, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, etc. are now being counted as COVID deaths?some of those covid numbers have to be the flu don't they?
accidents should be down and homicide is probably down in NYC
the 3,000 extra deaths over this period is certainly concerning and not normal, those are most certainly covid caused...that increase cannot be explained by anything than a new 2020 threat to health.
I merely think the numbers may be inflated a bit
If anybody has any reason for the discrepancy other than now attributing many of the to be expected deaths as covid now I am all ears.
The below data could be fake, I am also open to that.
Is that possible?
Some numbers have dropped off unexplainably if that graph is actually legit, I can't find original source.
Last edited:
Anything is possible, I guess.
But I can't see It being likely in any of those scenarios except flu or maybe heart disease when the death occurs outside the hospital or upon arrival.
Once they are admitted you get labs drawn, cardiac tests, radiology, etc. It would be hard to misdiagnose then. Labs and tests can tell you if they are in cardiac trouble or respiratory trouble.
I've never taken a covid swab for testing without also swabbing for the flu. We want to know as bad as anyone else. The doctors want you to be negative and have something they know and trust like heart failure. They know exactly what to do for you then. They all go above and beyond to make sure they aren't missing anything. But that's just from my experience.
I don't doubt the health crisis at all. I just know humans never let a good crisis go to waste. So a "graph" like that makes me mull over the possibilities.
It actually kinda did happen here, and I have and read and heard of some other examples.
It surely is happening but the question is how much...and also how many died at home with covid and didn't get tested/counted(maybe that number is zero, but maybe it is large)
Stay safe kicker
Great question. Here's one for you...
You are the nurse of a demented 85 year old covid positive patient but he only has a dry cough. No other symptoms and O2 stays good.
He was living with his daughter who is in another hospital with covid w/respiratory distress. He has an adult son with a wife and child at home. You receive discharge papers and are told to call the son to come and pick him up because he isn't sick enough to be in the hospital.
What do you do?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
It has to be more clear than that, right? They state the number of dead are similar, not the virus characteristics.
By that story...
COVID19 USA Lockdown deaths = Regular open society largely vaccinated flu deaths
That's a pretty important consideration when we look at how to taper this thing off so we can get back to it.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Dude needs to be discharged home.
Stanford Study specifically recruited people who thought they had been previously infected.
Coronavirus: Email From Stanford Professor’s Wife Claimed His Antibody Study Would Prove If You Were Immune
and i still see people referencing it to support the position that we can return to The Way Things Were.
Coronavirus: Email From Stanford Professor’s Wife Claimed His Antibody Study Would Prove If You Were Immune
and i still see people referencing it to support the position that we can return to The Way Things Were.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
If we can get some medical treatments, we should see this thing going down because duh...we can treat it.
But until then, I don't see how older fatter America is going to have a lower mortality rate than some of the countries with huge testing campaigns and modern healthcare.
0.5%-1.x% in most of these places as a whole. You don't need to test everyone (though that has been done in samples of single towns or like iceland is working on right now) to have a really good dataset that estimated accurately. But if you see a result that is 5-10x lower than the places with huge testing and modern healthcare you have to question why that is. That Stanford error isn't a surprise in that context that decided no testing USA is somehow doing 5-10x lower death rate than high testing S Korea.
BTW here's a recent breakdown of S Korea to parse out the age groups.
South Korea: coronavirus mortality rate by age 2020 | Statista
This is not terribly off from US data to date that shows a increase at 50+ and especially 60+.
Interventions are so variable, but if you avoid system overruns and are in a western healthcare system, these seem to be the ballpark.
We can probably get this lower with more testing and medical treatment understanding, even if that isn't a new vaccine/drug breakthrough.
So common cold came from birds 200 years ago and it has not gone anywhere. Scientists unable to create a vaccine for it since 1950s.
Unable to create vaccine for it because there are many strains, vaccine could only be created for 1 strain.
From what I know covid has different strains or something.
@Splinty your thoughts please.
Unable to create vaccine for it because there are many strains, vaccine could only be created for 1 strain.
From what I know covid has different strains or something.
@Splinty your thoughts please.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
A handful of scientist cast doubt on the ability to create a COVID19 vaccine.
They are few and far between with most assuming it can be done.
SARS vaccines are proven in early phase trials but then money dried up because the threat went way. So probably can be done.
There are two strains of SarsCov2 but they are not appreciably different at this time in the sense of our testing/responding/vaccinating them.
AlphaBrain Trevor Bedford PhD who has been instrumental in early viral tracking and has a job in viral mutations and families suggest at the current mutation SarsCov2 will have similar proteins to target with a vaccine for many years. That is, he does not expect it to change fast like the flu. He is one guy, but he's smarter than me and this is all he does. And it doesn't matte because we still gonna try to make a vaccine now.
Probably gonna make a vaccine. Probably will work long enough for the short term future.
This is exactly why we need as many people hunting and killing birds as possible.
How about just stop eating them.
No.
Then it will mutate and all the non-birds will get it.
Have you ever eaten house sparrows shit?
It can give you a cough with white liquid.
My dog caught the virus few years ago.
Try it sometime
D
