re: Fauci predicts millions of coronavirus cases in US and 100,000-200,000 deaths

quote:

---

What data?

You do know that there may be some significant problems with the antibody tests?

---

You see significant problems with every report that has an outcome that you don't like.

Two times a small number is still a small number.

quote:

---

And again, you're assuming 0 people died Of it before we started tracking, and 0 people will die following today.

---

Well, we're also counting presumptive positive deaths in the total.

So....

quote:

---

It’s called recognizing.and rejecting confirmation bias.

---

You think you don't have confirmation bias?

quote:

---

How do your think they estimate flu deaths?

---

So we really aren't sure how many more it is? It could be 20k, like you said. It could be 30k, or it could be 10k? Do you know for sure? I don't.

Seems like the phrase "slightly worse" is even more appropriate now.

quote:

---

How long has the virus been here? Speculation now is early January. So, ~30k in 5-6 months vs. ~50k in 3-4 months.

---

The flu is pretty well spread out throughout the country. The US coronavirus fatalities are a wide spread between 10% or less of a normal flu season (Hawaii the lowest at 0.8deaths/100k), and 7x a normal flu season (New York, 105deaths/100k).

The reason this is still in high-end flu range at the national level is population heavy hitters like Texas/California/Florida posting well under flu-like numbers while New York is seeing if it can make a run at the Spanish flu (it won't get there).

In the deep south, Louisiana is the 'worst', sitting ok at 2x a normal season (30deaths/100,000 vs 15), or roughly in line with a bad season. Not unmanageable to say the least if we can keep the PPE and capacity in check. The rest of the South looks pretty good.

quote:

---

H1N1

---

I think the 12k estimate for us H1N1 deaths was based on around 1200 lab confirmed deaths.


So the CDC estimate was like 12x.

I'm definitely interested to see what the cdc estimate will be in about a year or two.

quote:

---

And based on the excess mortality data, that’s going to be an underestimate. And the majority of places haven’t included probable deaths.

I think when it’s all said and done, we’re looking at upwards of 120,000 deaths using the current reporting with just the CURRENT WAVE, and when the CDC does their estimates like they do with the flu, those will be revised upwards 1.5 to 2.5 times (180,000 to 360,000). And that’s actually a lower revision, since H1N1 was revised up 4X with a range from like 3-5.

---

quote:

---

I think the 12k estimate for us H1N1 deaths was based on around 1200 lab confirmed deaths.


So the CDC estimate was like 12x.

---

For some reason I thought 3,000 or so of the 18,500 or so confirmed positive deaths were from the US. Regardless, assuming a much smaller revision than normal, we’re still looking at a lot more deaths than our current reporting methods will show.

And this is based on excess mortality data globally (Europe to Indonesia) and locally (New York and New Orleans).

quote:

---

Not even sure what you’re arguing at this point? That the Imperial College model that fueled the panic overestimated deaths by a factor of 20, so was so far out it wasn’t taken seriously? Doomcasters like you quoted it and the 1.2M dead figure loudly and often.

---

Feel free to rummage through my post history but I can save you the time and assure that I never quoted the Imperial College model in support of anything.

I have defended the IMHE model constantly.

Furthermore, the Imperial College model (high end runs) was based on the assumption that absolutely no restrictions took place. It's a moot point now. But it's impossible to say they overestimated deaths. That is not to say I think we would have seen 2.2 million deaths.

quote:

---

Or that the IHME model, off by a factor of 3 (top end range was 180 K),

---

Originally top end was 141,995. Current top end is 123, 157. That isn't a factor of 3; It's not even a factor of 1.5.

quote:

---

was more reasonable, and everyone knew 100K was more likely, and totally worth shutting down a $20 trillion economy?

---

That's a different argument all together.

quote:

---

Because both of the above points would be examples of parroting false points. Had the American people been presented with a 100K casualty count, there’s no way they would have signed up for wrecking our economy and way of life.

---

They were presented the information but they chose to listen to talking heads instead of reading the information for themselves.