Early Estimates vs. Reality
11,129 Views |
70 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Premium
This is the model that Birx showed in March when the WH predicted 100,000 to 200,000 people could die as a result of the virus and some 30,000 to 60,000 in April. I've kept graphing on top of it and it has held up extremely well over time.
We were over 4500 deaths yesterday.
For serious matters, like maybe a medical and economic national crisis, I would suggest you avoid Twitter,
I have nothing to add other than I really like Kevin's response to that.
Oh and avoid Twitter.
Oh and avoid Twitter.
I don’t say this in a braggedocious way. But it’s true. I’ve been right about everything.
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
This particular thread on Twitter is referencing the state of Ohio. I do agree about not using Twitter as a source, which is why I came here because Texags>>>>> Twitter.
My understanding, though limited and desiring more factually based information, is that some of those early estimates with huge numbers of infections (multi-millions) were based on models including the quarantine and social distancing practices factored in. I've found references to CDC estimating as "low" as 2 million infections in mid-March with those practices implemented, but I can't find anything directly stating that, just blog type posts referencing those statements.
My understanding, though limited and desiring more factually based information, is that some of those early estimates with huge numbers of infections (multi-millions) were based on models including the quarantine and social distancing practices factored in. I've found references to CDC estimating as "low" as 2 million infections in mid-March with those practices implemented, but I can't find anything directly stating that, just blog type posts referencing those statements.
Those tweets make no sense. His dr said take his medicine or the virus could kill him. He did. He's alive. He thinks the dr is an idiot? WTF?
I hear what you're saying, but my understanding, though it could be wrong, is those big scary numbers in OH and US wide had factored in the "medicine".
MasterAggie said:
Those tweets make no sense. His dr said take his medicine or the virus could kill him. He did. He's alive. He thinks the dr is an idiot? WTF?
It was a response to the idiots that say "see not as many people are dieing, so clearly the measures we are taking arent needed because they worked so well."
As the later reply said, the OH governor's statement was more than a week before he ordered the shelter at home order.
No, there were not 4500 Americans that died from coronavirus yesterday.
A lot of people said "the models were wrong! they said 2 million would die!" are referring, I think, to the most publicized model in mid march - here it is: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
Yes, there is a graph in that release showing 2.2 million US deaths. It is prefaced by "In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour". The table is labeled "Unmitigated epidemic scenarios for GB and the US. "
Later, in Figure 2, it shows the impact of some forms of "lockdown". None seem as extreme as we have gone actually - locking down the sick but only social distance age 70 or older.
Table 4 and 5 show the massive impact of different forms of "lockdown" (for GB, could be extrapolated to US)
But most who are critical of models just say "I once saw a prediction of 2.2 million deaths and it isn't happening".
Edit: And do you know WHY that is what gets referenced? Because a damn tweet or news article headline (articles are rarely read, mostly just headlines) picked "2.2 MILLION COULD DIE" out of the whole report, to get attention. Annnnndd.....that works.
Yes, there is a graph in that release showing 2.2 million US deaths. It is prefaced by "In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour". The table is labeled "Unmitigated epidemic scenarios for GB and the US. "
Later, in Figure 2, it shows the impact of some forms of "lockdown". None seem as extreme as we have gone actually - locking down the sick but only social distance age 70 or older.
Table 4 and 5 show the massive impact of different forms of "lockdown" (for GB, could be extrapolated to US)
But most who are critical of models just say "I once saw a prediction of 2.2 million deaths and it isn't happening".
Edit: And do you know WHY that is what gets referenced? Because a damn tweet or news article headline (articles are rarely read, mostly just headlines) picked "2.2 MILLION COULD DIE" out of the whole report, to get attention. Annnnndd.....that works.
The Ohio governor also stood next to his "expert" in a press conference on March 12th when she said that 100,000 Ohioans had already been infected.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487329-ohio-health-official-estimates-100000-people-in-state-have-coronavirus
"We know"
Not "we think". But "we know".
"at the very least"
Not "possibly as much as". But "at the very least".
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487329-ohio-health-official-estimates-100000-people-in-state-have-coronavirus
Quote:
"We know now, just the fact of community spread, says that at least 1 percent, at the very least, 1 percent of our population is carrying this virus in Ohio today," Acton said. "We have 11.7 million people. So the math is over 100,000. So that just gives you a sense of how this virus spreads and is spreading quickly."
"We know"
Not "we think". But "we know".
"at the very least"
Not "possibly as much as". But "at the very least".
I read on this forum somewhere that some of the earlier models (possibly the ones with the 100-240k death estimates) were assuming for the sake of the model that Americans would have 50% compliance with mitigation behaviors. It turns out now that the compliance has been closer to 90%, which has drastically affected these models. It's confusing because people say "the earlier models did take into account social distancing etc. and were just drastically wrong" but these mitigation behaviors are variables and it is easy to see how wrongly estimating compliance could result in the death estimate being way off (even though the models did attempt to include the behaviors).
Keegan99 said:
No, there were not 4500 Americans that died from coronavirus yesterday.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/493287-reported-us-coronavirus-deaths-hits-record-one-day-total-of-more-than-4500
Everywhere else says 2174
https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-surges-in-some-asian-countries-that-had-been-lightly-hit-11587031743?mod=rsswn
From this link.
Reported U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Reach Record 4,591 in 24 Hours.
Maybe the wsj decided to pick peak hours
From this link.
Reported U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Reach Record 4,591 in 24 Hours.
Maybe the wsj decided to pick peak hours
Sounds like over 24 hours. Yeah.
It's strange because John's Hopkins own site doesn't show that many.
There was a one day spike that threw off the data for a lot of people when NY increased their death total to include all those who died outside the hospital because of COVID.
There was a one day spike that threw off the data for a lot of people when NY increased their death total to include all those who died outside the hospital because of COVID.
Negative. Not the 1.1 million to 2.3 million. That was all based on doing nothing.Bulldog73 said:
I hear what you're saying, but my understanding, though it could be wrong, is those big scary numbers in OH and US wide had factored in the "medicine".
I don’t say this in a braggedocious way. But it’s true. I’ve been right about everything.
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
Anyone else think the 100-200k estimate may actually be low?
We're already at 35k dead and we're at what, month 2 out of 18?
We're already at 35k dead and we're at what, month 2 out of 18?
That includes prior deaths that were just now reported.
4500+ did not die yesterday. Or in any 24 hour period.
4500+ did not die yesterday. Or in any 24 hour period.
I was discussing this with a couple of posters yesterday. To get to 200,000 we would need about 670 deaths a day. Considering where everything is that is not a crazy over/under so to speak.TxAG#2011 said:
Anyone else think the 100-200k estimate may actually be low?
We're already at 35k dead and we're at what, month 2 out of 18?
I don’t say this in a braggedocious way. But it’s true. I’ve been right about everything.
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
Nvm. Already covered in a different thread.
agsalaska said:I was discussing this with a couple of posters yesterday. To get to 200,000 we would need about 670 deaths a day. Considering where everything is that is not a crazy over/under so to speak.TxAG#2011 said:
Anyone else think the 100-200k estimate may actually be low?
We're already at 35k dead and we're at what, month 2 out of 18?
It absolutely is crazy.
See Farr's Law.
Keegan99 said:agsalaska said:I was discussing this with a couple of posters yesterday. To get to 200,000 we would need about 670 deaths a day. Considering where everything is that is not a crazy over/under so to speak.TxAG#2011 said:
Anyone else think the 100-200k estimate may actually be low?
We're already at 35k dead and we're at what, month 2 out of 18?
It absolutely is crazy.
See Farr's Law.
Fall of 1918 would like a word.
Farr's law assumes that the pathogen is allowed to pursue an uninterrupted cycle.
If infections are decreasing, it is not because of Farr's law, it is because we short circuited Farr's law by social means.
We would need multiple cycles comparable to this one to get to 200k.
That won't happen.
That won't happen.
Keegan99 said:
We would need multiple cycles comparable to this one to get to 200k.
That won't happen.
We aren't done with this one and the next will be worse because so many people think we over reacted this time. (we didn't)
We're more than halfway through this one. It will be under 60k. Depending on how numbers get fudged.
The IHME model was at 61k previously and will be adjusted downward today.
We would need at least two more cycles as intense as this one to sniff 200k.
The IHME model was at 61k previously and will be adjusted downward today.
We would need at least two more cycles as intense as this one to sniff 200k.
What happens differently in May that we didn't do in the beginning of March?
Are we thinking (hoping?) that a little more awareness and social distancing is going to keep this thing under control in this second go around?
Are we thinking (hoping?) that a little more awareness and social distancing is going to keep this thing under control in this second go around?
We are, at best at the peak in deaths considering the there highest days of reported deaths were literally the last 3 days, with 35,000 cumulative deaths to date. As Nate Silver and others have pointed out, it's faulty to assume that the death curve will be symmetrical and end in zero. It's more realistic that there will be a long tail on the backside of this curve. There are still tens of thousands of patients in critical care who have yet to come out the other side o this.
As a math major I don't know how you so definitively make that statement about being under 60k.
Below is a good thread on the topic of the model shapes:
As a math major I don't know how you so definitively make that statement about being under 60k.
Below is a good thread on the topic of the model shapes:
the model estimates are worthless changes in human behavior or bad modeling has rendered them inaccurate
NYC , NOLA, & Albany GA
A Mega City , An Urban Center , A Rural town. all 3 have recorded death rates of 150/100,000. Two ways to look at those numbers open it back up thie disease is not that lethal or significant loss of life will happen if the virus gets well established in a community.
From the reports I have seen from those 3 areas this is definitely worse than the flu.
In a month there will be data from Sioux Falls to add &. a few more people will die in the listed communities pushing the death rate a little higher
NYC , NOLA, & Albany GA
A Mega City , An Urban Center , A Rural town. all 3 have recorded death rates of 150/100,000. Two ways to look at those numbers open it back up thie disease is not that lethal or significant loss of life will happen if the virus gets well established in a community.
From the reports I have seen from those 3 areas this is definitely worse than the flu.
In a month there will be data from Sioux Falls to add &. a few more people will die in the listed communities pushing the death rate a little higher
Worldometers which is official had the US with a little over 2100 deaths yesterday. So quit using sources like the Hill. They use GMT+ so that is 7PM central every day here for the 24 hour period.Duncan Idaho said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-surges-in-some-asian-countries-that-had-been-lightly-hit-11587031743?mod=rsswn
From this link.
Reported U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Reach Record 4,591 in 24 Hours.
Maybe the wsj decided to pick peak hours
NMKeegan99 said:
We're more than halfway through this one. It will be under 60k. Depending on how numbers get fudged.
The IHME model was at 61k previously and will be adjusted downward today.
We would need at least two more cycles as intense as this one to sniff 200k.
I don’t say this in a braggedocious way. But it’s true. I’ve been right about everything.
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025
-Donald J Trump
-9/22/2025