Administration projects 100000-240000 deaths due to COVID-19

[Catonahottinroof]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...s-latest-news/

[CitizenBBN]

Yep, but hoping to reduce that of course. I think we can, but it pays to be blunt.

Yesterday's briefing was a sober one.

[ukpumacat]

Bill Gates Foundation's model is saying 93,000. And the worst day being on April 16th.

[UKHistory]

The Gates' model is awful but the most optimistic. We will see.

[CitizenBBN]

If we keep it in the 100K range it puts it somewhere between Alzheimer's (121K) and Diabetes (84K) as a killer in the US.

It's bad, but for perspective the Spanish flu killed somewhere around 700K in the US, when the nation was far smaller.

For more perspective, in the US alone it killed 195,000 in just the month of October 1918. US population at that time was 103 million.

Going to be a really happy spring and summer, but it won't be a catastrophe. Just really bad.

[Padukacat]

If we keep it in the 100K range it puts it somewhere between Alzheimer's (121K) and Diabetes (84K) as a killer in the US.

It's bad, but for perspective the Spanish flu killed somewhere around 700K in the US, when the nation was far smaller.

For more perspective, in the US alone it killed 195,000 in just the month of October 1918. US population at that time was 103 million.

Going to be a really happy spring and summer, but it won't be a catastrophe. Just really bad.

Is that in large part because of better medical care these days vs Spanish flu?

[CitizenBBN]

Is that in large part because of better medical care these days vs Spanish flu?

A few reasons.

No doubt lack of medical technology was huge. At that time we didn't even know the flu was a virus. Ability to make a vaccine was all but non-existent, and we didn't have antibiotics to combat the pneumonia and other bacterial infections it caused.

But another reason it was so bad was (and this is good news) that most countries were very reluctant to have quarantines of the general public.

WWI armistice wasn't until November of 1918, so it was still a wartime economy in Europe when it really got bad.

Also, there had been a widespread flu caused by the virus, but at some point it mutated into a much more lethal strain, but they didn't realize the mutation until after troops had left the front and carried it all over the world, literally.

So they disseminated the virus in a way that was perfect for it, were unaware this was a far more deadly strain, and were slow to quarantine due to the need to keep factories working for the war effort.

The world was totally unprepared for it and there was no real answer other than to quarantine and let it run its course.

We're way better off obviously. We've quarantined a LOT faster, and we have vastly better technology.

We wont' see anything like the Spanish Flu type impact, but my point was that as a matter of perspective while 100K dead is horrible, it's honestly a victory in the macro sense.

[dan_bgblue]

Just sitting on my back porch musing about some things. This is purely one of those things that may or may not be worth thinking about, but it is the way my mind works that dredges up such thoughts. It is a what if.

It appears that some of the models, and for those of you who do not know me that well, I despise scientific or quasi scientific models for anything that requires more than 1/2 page of data to enter to derive results) if not a majority of them at this stage of the game are backing off the most dire number predictions of death numbers in the USA from the Mexican beer virus. Given the fact that the original numbers were based on best guestimates they could make for input data, it will amaze me if the original predictions wind up being within 100,000 deaths + or - 50%. One of the major problems with their original input dataset is that the final number that they publish will in no way be accurate within several thousand deaths as the numbers coming from each individual hospital will be skewed as they are not doing autopsies and are counting every death as a COVID19 death, if the patient tested positive for the virus, even when the actual cause may have been one of the underlying contributing reasons.

It may turn out in the end that the President's statement that we have this under control was more prophetic than the predictions of a quarter million virus deaths. I am not saying that is the way it will turn out but I am saying his prediction has as good of a chance to be correct as the ones spit out by a computer that are based on guestimated input numbers and guesses of ongoing conditions.

Based on some news reports we are at least 3 months if not a bit more into the virus pandemic, and the worst death numbers that can be reported are less than 14,000. This has happened despite the administration doing everything wrong except for pushing social distancing, and giving away enough money to keep workers home instead of going back to work to save their supply of toilet paper, spam, bottled water, houses, cars, etc.

If chicken little turns out to have been wrong once again, I wonder if we will find a way to agree on what we think caused the chicken to squawk so loudly this time.

[kingcat]

Unprecedented actions hopefully yield unprecedented results.

All that matters is that any life that could have been saved is saved, and any person who avoided losing a close loved one was spared, and anyone who may have been sicker than they ever had been remained healthy.

If we lower those numbers drastically, the entire population is to thank, minus the few.
Especially those who done their part out of concern for their fellow man, themselves, and a patriotic duty.

A great danger remains, but I think God will reward due diligence, and more eyes looking to heaven in thanks.

[ukpumacat]

Just sitting on my back porch musing about some things. This is purely one of those things that may or may not be worth thinking about, but it is the way my mind works that dredges up such thoughts. It is a what if.

It appears that some of the models, and for those of you who do not know me that well, I despise scientific or quasi scientific models for anything that requires more than 1/2 page of data to enter to derive results) if not a majority of them at this stage of the game are backing off the most dire number predictions of death numbers in the USA from the Mexican beer virus. Given the fact that the original numbers were based on best guestimates they could make for input data, it will amaze me if the original predictions wind up being within 100,000 deaths + or - 50%. One of the major problems with their original input dataset is that the final number that they publish will in no way be accurate within several thousand deaths as the numbers coming from each individual hospital will be skewed as they are not doing autopsies and are counting every death as a COVID19 death, if the patient tested positive for the virus, even when the actual cause may have been one of the underlying contributing reasons.

It may turn out in the end that the President's statement that we have this under control was more prophetic than the predictions of a quarter million virus deaths. I am not saying that is the way it will turn out but I am saying his prediction has as good of a chance to be correct as the ones spit out by a computer that are based on guestimated input numbers and guesses of ongoing conditions.

Based on some news reports we are at least 3 months if not a bit more into the virus pandemic, and the worst death numbers that can be reported are less than 14,000. This has happened despite the administration doing everything wrong except for pushing social distancing, and giving away enough money to keep workers home instead of going back to work to save their supply of toilet paper, spam, bottled water, houses, cars, etc.

If chicken little turns out to have been wrong once again, I wonder if we will find a way to agree on what we think caused the chicken to squawk so loudly this time.

King is referencing this but those numbers were based on us doing nothing.
What we have seen globally is unlike anything in all of our lifetimes. The vast majority of the country is on lockdown. If we weren’t, these numbers would be outrageous.
And you correctly state that if someone has Covid and dies, they are listing as a Covid death. But you incorrectly use that to mean there are less deaths than being reported.
In fact, it’s the opposite.
In New York alone, 2,300 people died this week and last at home. Last year, 450 died in that time frame.
None of those have been counted as Covid deaths because they were not tested for it. The vast majority certainly had it.

The death toll is likely much higher than what we are seeing here and around the world (especially China).
And if we were not living under these extreme restrictions, those original models would have been very right.
When Trump said “we have this under control” he could not have been more wrong.

[dan_bgblue]

https://www.aier.org/article/more-se...-19-estimates/

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/sta...41085567193088

3 deaths related to the virus

[bigsky]

1% of icu beds used in MT. No deaths here in Gallatin County even though we are the big Kahuna of cases in montana.