Key Coronavirus Model Now Predicts Many Fewer U.S. Deaths

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest

Key Coronavirus Model Now Predicts Many Fewer U.S. Deaths​

A Sunday update of a prominent COVID-19 forecasting model suggests that fewer lives will be lost during the first wave of the coronavirus outbreak than previously thought.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) now predicts that 81,766 people will die of COVID-19 in the U.S. through early August. When the model was last updated, on April 2, it predicted 11,765 deaths more deaths, for a total of 93,531.

The model, which has been cited by the White House, relies on numbers from China, Italy, Spain, and areas around the U.S. The change in prediction is due to “a massive infusion of new data,” IHME director Dr. Christopher Murray said in a press release.

According to its website, the IHME model was developed to “provide hospitals, health-care workers, policymakers, and the public with crucial information about what demands COVID-19 may place on hospital capacity and resources, so that they could begin to plan.” The model’s latest update includes several important changes related to that planning. Many fewer hospital beds will be needed at peak than previously anticipated, according to the new projections. The April 5 update predicts the need for 140,823 total hospital beds and 29,210 ICU beds at the peak of the outbreak. Those numbers are down 121,269 and 10,517, respectively.

The model also revised downward the prediction for the number of ventilators needed at the height of the outbreak. It now predicts the need for 18,992 ventilators, down from 31,782.

One thing that didn’t change between the April 2 and April 5 models is the projected date of the outbreak’s peak. The model still predicts an April 16 apex for the daily COVID-19 death rate. Hospital use is expected to peak on April 15. . . . .
Click to expand...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/k...now-predicts-many-fewer-us-deaths/ar-BB12edu1
 
sloancaprice . . .
I’m not terribly excited about 80000 deaths that could have been avoided.
Click to expand...
  1. WHO do you think IS “excited about 80,000 deaths”?
Certainly you are not unhappy about this revision of deaths downward.

So WHY this response to such an article?
  1. Do you REALLY think all “80,000 deaths could have been avoided”? Or do you just mean SOME of them??
I’m not terribly excited about 80000 deaths that could have been avoided.
Click to expand...
Bold mine.
 
Last edited:
I think it is certainly a good thing that models are trending downwards now. Perhaps it is even an answer to prayers.
 
I thought over 200,000 sounded very high. Perhaps the social distancing practiced
by most of the states in time helped.

It is certainly better than 2 million!
 
Cathoholic said:
WHO do you think IS “excited about 80,000 deaths”?
Click to expand...
It’s a common stylistic rhetorical device. The rhetorical guide that I have before me classifies this as an “understatement.” It even provides an example with similar wording.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Though it may fit other typologies. It could also be considered an idiom, where a literal meaning of the words that make up the phrase result in a different interpretation than the one commonly applied to the the phrase.

With this in mind, I think you will see it is not being stated or implied that anyone is looking at the possibility of 80,000 deaths with excitement.
 
Last edited:
Good catch.

The IHME site points out that at the end of the first wave, in their model, 97% of the population remains uninfected. The model is also predicated on shelter-in-place through the end of May.

I hope that people realize that the mitigation are what is making the difference in caseload and deaths, that this “low” death numbers reflect long and rigorous mitigation efforts, and that when the wave is over, we may have to do it all over again if the 97% is later exposed to some lingering infection,
 
Last edited:
I agree that it is working. I also hope someone has a proposal to pay people who are forced to shelter in place until the government deems it okay to come out. It certainly seems to make a major difference, but one cannot stop there as a “plan.”
 
Last edited:
Dr_Meinheimer said:
It certainly seems to make a major difference, but one cannot stop there as a “plan.”
Click to expand...
I agree. I expect that there will be a phasing back to a new-normalcy that involves both place and nature of work. Unless this is done with skill and coordination across the nation, we will be right back to the ides of March in no time.
 
sloancaprice . . .
I’m not terribly excited about 80000 deaths that could have been avoided.
Click to expand...
Cathoholic . . .
  1. WHO do you think IS “excited about 80,000 deaths”?
Certainly you are not unhappy about this revision of deaths downward.

So WHY this response to such an article?
Click to expand...
sloancaprice’s response?

Initially nothing.

TS’ response for sloancaprice?

It was an overstatement to represent a rhetorical understatement. (Here it is.)

Cathoholic to TS. . .
Why do you feel the need to speak for him TS?
Click to expand...
At this point sloancaprice finally chimes in.
he is right. It is a rhetorical device.
Click to expand...
(You have been here on CAF for only 48 hours sloancaprice. How do you know ThinkingSapien is a “he”?)

Ok.

sloancaprice.

Do you REALLY think all “80,000 deaths could have been avoided”? Or do you just mean SOME of them??

If some, how many? Why did you draw that conclusion? What countries do you think have been exemplary in handling this?
 
Last edited:
dvdjs . . .
Good catch.

The IHME site points out that at the end of the first wave, in their model, 97% of the population remains uninfected. The model is also predicated on shelter-in-place through the end of May.

I hope that people realize that the mitigation are what is making the difference in caseload and deaths, that this “low” death numbers reflect long and rigorous mitigation efforts, and that when the wave is over, we may have to do it all over again if the 97% is later exposed to some lingering infection,
Click to expand...
Good to see you by implication, joining me dvdjs on closing your borders (with very few exceptions).

The relatively open border policies America has had have been bad for not only infectious disease but crime.

We should be more individually selective (not “race selective” so please don’t anybody equivocate that into my statement) who we let in the country. And allow true migrants in at a far slower pace so they can integrate and inculturate easier.

Just like Taiwan is doing.

Taiwan Closes Borders in Preparation for Possible ‘Second Wave’ of the Coronavirus​

The country has managed to contain the outbreak, but it’s on edge after an influx of imported cases from foreign tourists and returning Taiwanese travelers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sloancaprice.

Do you REALLY think all “80,000 deaths could have been avoided” ? Or do you just mean SOME of them??

If some, how many? Why did you draw that conclusion? What countries do you think have been exemplary in handling this?
Click to expand...
sloancaprice . . .
CAF only allows so many posts a day, so I am being frugal.
Click to expand...
Good idea to be frugal.

You can edit your own answer to include an answer to my question! Even now!

The best of both worlds.

You get to maintain frugality AND answer my question.
 
Cathoholic said:
Why do you feel the need to speak for him TS?
Click to expand...
I don’t, but I wanted to extend to you the courtesy that you’ve extended to me by providing a different perspective on the matter. 🙂
Cathoholic said:
How do you know ThinkingSapien is a “he”?
Click to expand...
ThinkingSapien identifies on this forum as a cis-gendered heterosexual man. Even if he did not, he would take no offense in being referred to as “he” in the absence of other information The Jury is still kind of out on a widely acceptable gender neutral singular pronoun in English. Though using “They” is sometimes used as a singular gender neutral pronoun. I’m no fan of some of those proposed ones like “zhe” and “zhim.”

And really, since we are talking about life and death is there really genuine concern about using the proper gender pronoun? But I’m sure there are people that would really appreciate the emphasis on using one’s preferred gender pronoun here.
sloancaprice said:
No offense is meant if that person is female and none is usually taken.
Click to expand...
No offense was assumed, and no harm was done.
 

Actual Hospitalizations for Coronavirus Significantly Lower than Projections in Model​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

JACK GUEZ/AFP via Getty Images

MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY

3 Apr 2020 Breitbart News

The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) model cited by White House Coronavirus Task Force officials appears to dramatically overstate the hospitalization of patients with coronavirus in the United States when the model’s projections are compared to actual data, a Breitbart News analysis finds.

Breitbart News compared projections of the number of regular hospital beds needed to treat coronavirus patients made in the Friday, April 3 iteration of the IHME model for nine states to the actual number of cumulative hospitalizations (a number that includes current regular bed hospitalizations, current ICU hospitalizations, previously hospitalized and released patients, and previously hospitalized and deceased patients) reported by the respective health departments in those states as of Thursday, April 2.

The results showed that the actual number of cumulative hospitalizations as a percentage of regular hospital beds needed projected by the IHME model ranged from nine percent in Tennessee to 47 percent in Florida.

Even in New York State, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic, the actual number of cumulative hospitalizations as a percentage of regular hospital beds needed projected by the IHME model was only 37 percent.

These numbers, however, actually understate the degree to which the IHME model overestimates the number of hospital beds currently needed for coronavirus patients because the numerator–cumulative hospitalizations–includes data well in addition to the actual number of current regular hospital beds in use for coronavirus patients, since it also includes current ICU hospital beds in use for coronavirus patients as well as previously hospitalized coronavirus patients either released or deceased.

Data on cumulative hospitalizations in currently reported by most states, while some provide more detailed information.

The Department of Public Health in Minnesota, for instance, reported as of April 2 that 46 out of the 156 reported cumulative hospitalizations in the state for coronavirus are patients currently in regular hospital beds, while 40 are patients in ICU hospital beds and 70 are formerly hospitalized patients who have been released or are deceased. . . .
Click to expand...
 
ThinkingSapien . . .
Even if he did not, he would take no offense in being referred to as “he” . . .
Click to expand...
But I never brought up “offense”.

Why are you changing the premise of my question?

.
I don’t, but I wanted to extend to you the courtesy that you’ve extended to me by providing a different perspective on the matter. 🙂
Click to expand...
Then do what I did (in your citation of me) and label it as YOUR OWN opinion.🙂
 
Last edited:
Some people will be mad and upset about less American deaths than predicted.

Great work President Trump and CDC!

CDC Director: Coronavirus Death Toll Will Be ‘Much, Much, Much Lower’ than Projected​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Navy Medicine/Flickr

JOSHUA CAPLAN

7 Apr 2020 Breitbart News

Appearing Monday on AM 1030 KVOI Radio, Dr. Robert Redfield, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), predicted that the death toll from the Chinese coronavirus will be “much, much, much lower” than the models have projected due to Americans following social distancing recommendations. . . .
Click to expand...

Time to slowly but surely transition America back to work.
 
Can you identify who these people might be? It is kind of an outrageous statement!
Click to expand...
It is an accurate statement.

Yes I can, but no I won’t.

Senators Cruz and Rubio have sensed the same thing too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top