Dr. Anthony Fauci Says Expect Between 100k and 200k Coronavirus Deaths in U.S. https://www.tmz.com/2020/03/29/dr-anthony-fauci-100k-200k-coronavirus-update/
Dr. Fauci gives grim projection
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
If he is right we are 2% of the way there as far as deaths. I'm exhausted mentally and we are only 2%. Just some perspective.
I'm glad you stopped listening to the doctors you had lunch with in the Capital Grille. (The place was full!). Those guys were not giving you a good perspective. The phrase -
"Common sense balanced with living your life...we make those decisions every day."
was in retrospect, naive.
I listen to medical experts, not the MSM or politicians. Does it surprise you that even medical experts have differing opinions and their points of view change over time as they get more data?
A really bright guy told me this two weeks ago. Looking at the results, your medical experts turned out to be wrong.
Let me cut to the chase. We are in a serious medical, economic and social situation. I objected at the time to the cavalier way you portrayed this virus as "common sense - it's not that hard, people". And I object to the way you are cavalierly portraying your new position as "experts are wrong, so get over it." as if we are discussing whether we think Jahari Long is going to be a solid recruit for us.
You don't get context. That's not my problem. You want to parse a couple of words to fit your narrative and ignore all of the posts I've made highlighting the admission/ICU data and other facts, well go ahead, if that floats your boat.
To be clear, I objected to what you said - not you personally. You attack my mental capacity (I don't get context). Insults are your standard response when you are challenged.
You don't get the context of my post is an "insult"??? lol...Dude; I've got more important things to do, so if you want to continue with the nonsense, go ahead, but you'll be doing so alone.
Your choice. But I stand by what I said.
We are in a serious medical, economic and social situation. I objected at the time to the cavalier way you portrayed this virus as "common sense - it's not that hard, people". And I object to the way you are cavalierly portraying your new position as "experts are wrong, so get over it." as if we are discussing whether we think Jahari Long is going to be a solid recruit for us.
Having watched Dr. Fauci announce the 100,000 deaths, I started wondering about the context of such a number. Context is important, so I've been told.
In an effort to provide meaningful data and not cool stories, please click on the attached link. Currently, we are projected to have 83,000 deaths nationally by August 4 with 1887 deaths coming in NJ. There are also graphs as they relate to total bed and ICU capacity. I cannot vouch for it's complete accuracy but I felt it was comprehensive to pass along.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
In an effort to provide meaningful data and not cool stories, please click on the attached link. Currently, we are projected to have 83,000 deaths nationally by August 4 with 1887 deaths coming in NJ. There are also graphs as they relate to total bed and ICU capacity. I cannot vouch for it's complete accuracy but I felt it was comprehensive to pass along.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections
Even after a solid month of news, it is really hard to grasp the enormity of the situation. I have been looking at the website above but the question of how to accurately predict the coming weeks is really hard. The following two articles articulate that point.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-hard-to-make-a-good-covid-19-model/
https://www.wired.com/story/the-mat...-of-the-coronavirus/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
If others find websites with documented methodology, I would appreciate if you shared them.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-hard-to-make-a-good-covid-19-model/
https://www.wired.com/story/the-mat...-of-the-coronavirus/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
If others find websites with documented methodology, I would appreciate if you shared them.
Yeah, modeling seems to have been difficult with so many moving pieces.
The one thing I did think was really interesting and somewhat encouraging was the thermometer data:
https://healthweather.us/?mode=Atypical
Probably not being used much in poorer areas as their thermometers are fairly expensive but it is an interesting data point.
Healthdata.org just updated their projection. Total projected deaths remain mostly the same nationally 81,766 vs 83,000 on Wednesday. Unfortunately, NJ has had a serious uptick in the number of projected deaths - to 9690 in total by August 4, up from 1887. They are still projecting a massive shortfall of ICU beds (4000) in NJ but the divert list has remained pretty steady over the weekend. Currently, 8 hospitals are on the list....about the same as Saturday morning.
All indications are this will be a bad week. The good news is that today we had our first drop in overall new cases for the first time in a week. Its unclear if that is a blip or the start of a good trend.
On Wednesday, their site had 93,531 projected deaths. Nice to see that come down a lot.
Inovio is beginning clinical trials with vaccine.
https://www.lvb.com/pa-company-test...l&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email
https://www.lvb.com/pa-company-test...l&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email
I hope you are well.
You are right, the projection spiked mid-week. My guess is it had to do with their Alabama forecast which increased a lot. It's hard to know for sure.
Let's hope the modest decrease in cases in NY & NJ are a sign of things to come.
That site has now downgraded total projected deaths to 60,415, that's quite an adjustment.
In 2018, 59,000 people died of flu/pneumonia.
The models are all over the board. Really hard to tell with so many unknowns still at this point. Does the virus return in the fall? Do our mitigation techniques work? It would be so much better if the tally was 60k compared to what has been said. Hopefully the models continue to decrease in numbers.
I hope you are well.
I chose this website for two reasons.
1. It is the website referenced by both the White House and the media as a serious model.
2. It is easier (for me) to watch how one website adjusts it's model and forecasts.
I am happy the forecast is declining and it appears you are as well. SPK doesn't care either way. He is slow playing me for the ultimate conclusion that we wasted time and money on the coronavirus. I would prefer that discussion continue in other threads and leave this one alone to discuss only the models.
Stay safe,
kk
That's great news. Improvement in the model means that the steps we are taking are working.
Yup. And that the original projections were wildly wrong as well.
It doesn't mean that at all. Each forecast is "correct" when it is released. Each subsequent forecast becomes "more correct" as more data points are added.
As an example, if the Ro was entered as a variable at 2.0 on Monday and is entered at 1.8 today, that doesn't mean the model was wrong on Monday.
Each model enters many variables (not just Ro) so there are bound to be wide variations in potential outcomes. I found this website to be quite conservative.
When Dr. Fauci was on TV saying 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, this website was forecasting 81,000.
The 60,000 number has a wide degree of variability as well. The model predicts deaths as low as 30k or as high as 120k. There is no way to know today but I am pleased the trend line is positive.
Separately (and relatedly), the website projects the 60,000 deaths through August 4 but there will be no meaningful increase in total deaths beyond (approximately) June 6. The implication is the virus will cease to be an issue beyond June 6.
I hope that is the case but it doesn't seem right to me.
Not really, the website in question has always stated: "COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through May 2020"
Like all other wildy grim projections (like global cooling, global warming), etc., they were initially wildly wrong so they/you move the goalposts.
My goal post is that we do as much as possible to hit the low end on the range of projected deaths.
I'm not moving it. I'm also not going to come here and try to dunk on you if it hits the high end of the estimate.
Said all along that I hope people will say we overreacted when this is done because that will mean the steps we took worked.
I wish we could overact to limit drug addiction/overdose deaths, lung cancer deaths, suicides and other demographics of fatalities that kill many more people each year (and that we know a lot more about how to limit them).
Funny how that works! In reality, very sad that we overreact to something like this but don't do more to prevent more common forms of death.
Hope you're not implying I would be against programs that would help there as well.
Not too long ago, we had a long thread here of people making fun of college students who might want to pet a dog to relieve some stress... so maybe lets start by not making fun of people who might admit they are overwhelmed?
Just expressing my wishes. I'm not shy about criticizing our leadership when they fail to act and pay lip service to alarming numbers and trends. If dogs at college materially moved the needle on suicide rates, I'll happily review that data. Somehow I don't think that its in the top ten ways to prevent.
Do you view something like a pandemic differently than something that would be self inflicted?
Does the government have the same obligation to protect the public against both national pandemics and drug/alcohol use?
Smoking? Food consumption?
Different but also similar. There have been multiple threads on the impact of processed food, sugar content, etc. in both fatalities and cost. I want government focused on changing that paradigm, both at the supplier and consumer side. Kills more people every year than these other categories combined.
There is no evidence to support the contention the projection was wildly wrong. There are multiple models available but this one has been able to reach the highest levels of government. This website has not made wildly grim projections. In fact, it has been more conservative than the public statements by both the President and Dr. Fauci.
The website banner - COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through May 2020 - is accurate. If a state isn't participating in full social distancing then the forecast will reflect the death totals accordingly. So Alabama, which I discussed earlier in the week, had an April 1 projection of 5516 deaths. On April 4, the Alabama Governor issued the stay at home order. Today's website projects Alabama to have 634 deaths. A forecast becomes more precise as additional data points are added.
There are still a handful of states that have not issued stay at home orders (Nebraska for one). Assuming they do, I would expect the total deaths to decrease in those states as well.
I have already mentioned the areas I think the website is lacking but if the model has a serious flaw, the phrase on the banner "COVID-19 projections assuming full social distancing through May 2020" is not one of them.
Some positive anecdotal data:
* PA new cases has flattened at 12%/day for past three days after running at over 20%.
* Geisinger Health (one of the largest IDN's in PA) has less than 70 patients in their entire system although they expect that number to continue to increase this month.
* PA new cases has flattened at 12%/day for past three days after running at over 20%.
* Geisinger Health (one of the largest IDN's in PA) has less than 70 patients in their entire system although they expect that number to continue to increase this month.
Adding one more:
* Newark Beth Israel in the last month have had 416 positive admissions and have discharged 121 of those. They have purchased 100 beds to expand capacity if needed.
Does seem like we at the peak regionally. Hopefully nationally as well.
One thing that has been odd about the region though is the percentage of confirmed cases to total tests.
Most states are somewhere between 10-20% of tests are coming back positive. NJ and NY are closer to 50% right now. It seems odd that number hasn't been declining.
I'm not sure when things will be "normal" again, but based on the current trends, I think the first week of May looks like a reasonable time frame to start opening things back up with recommendations to maintain social distancing and that should be able to keep the spread and impact to hospitals manageable.
