4 ms·

2 Million deaths was without all the drastic measures we've taken. I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you are suggesting we (society) should hav

2 Million deaths was without all the drastic measures we've taken. I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you are suggesting we (society) should have done here. "Used our common sense" to do what?

m0zg 7y ago
So what you're saying is Donald Trump saved 2 million lives, then? :-) I think once we're through this, you will see that there wouldn't be 2 million deaths no matter what, although the measures did help, of course. The current IHME models get routinely revised downward by a lot (to 1/3-1/4th the initial figures) even though _they assumed "measures" right from the start_. As of this morning, the projected fatalities in the US dropped again by a quarter, to 61K, with the lower bound at 31K. My prediction? We will be nearer to the lower bound. Why do I think that? There are fewer than 10K "serious" cases in the US, and over the past week intubations in NY have dropped so precipitously, Cuomo doesn't mention them in his pressers anymore.
- macintux 7y ago
  I don’t know that anyone expected (nearly) every state to impose a stay-at-home order. Crashing our economy into a brick wall is not an easy decision. I frankly expected things to get much worse before state governments took action. Obviously we could have done much better, much sooner, but I certainly can believe why early estimates were much more pessimistic. And that’s all disregarding the fact that we still don’t know how/when this ends. We might still be in the early days.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    > I don’t know that anyone expected (nearly) every state to impose a stay-at-home order. IHME model did. And it still overestimated (and continues to overestimate) by a lot. What it predicted initially isn't even observed in countries where there's no lockdown at all.
    - gammarator 7y ago
      The current IHME best estimates are well within the uncertainty regions of the earlier predictions. Especially given all the modeling challenges, you cannot simply take the peak of the posterior as "the truth."
      - m0zg 7y ago
        No they aren't. 100K was the _lower_ bound of those predictions at one point. Now it's 31K. For models to be useful they have to have at least some sort of predictive power. IHME models are total bullshit that, if the feds 100% believed in it, would have caused a complete disaster due to NY hoarding massive quantities of equipment and supplies they did not need. Federal field hospital in IHME's home state, WA, was taken down the other day. It did not see a _single_ patient. The Javits temporary hospital in NY is also almost empty. NY hospitalizations are way down. ICU admissions are down even more steeply. We won't even get the 60K deaths the models are currently predicting. Not even close.

m0zg 7y ago

So what you're saying is Donald Trump saved 2 million lives, then? :-) I think once we're through this, you will see that there wouldn't be 2 million deaths no matter what, although the measures did help, of course. The current IHME models get routinely revised downward by a lot (to 1/3-1/4th the initial figures) even though _they assumed "measures" right from the start_. As of this morning, the projected fatalities in the US dropped again by a quarter, to 61K, with the lower bound at 31K. My prediction? We will be nearer to the lower bound. Why do I think that? There are fewer than 10K "serious" cases in the US, and over the past week intubations in NY have dropped so precipitously, Cuomo doesn't mention them in his pressers anymore.

macintux 7y ago
I don’t know that anyone expected (nearly) every state to impose a stay-at-home order. Crashing our economy into a brick wall is not an easy decision. I frankly expected things to get much worse before state governments took action. Obviously we could have done much better, much sooner, but I certainly can believe why early estimates were much more pessimistic. And that’s all disregarding the fact that we still don’t know how/when this ends. We might still be in the early days.
- m0zg 7y ago
  > I don’t know that anyone expected (nearly) every state to impose a stay-at-home order. IHME model did. And it still overestimated (and continues to overestimate) by a lot. What it predicted initially isn't even observed in countries where there's no lockdown at all.
  - gammarator 7y ago
    The current IHME best estimates are well within the uncertainty regions of the earlier predictions. Especially given all the modeling challenges, you cannot simply take the peak of the posterior as "the truth."
    - m0zg 7y ago
      No they aren't. 100K was the _lower_ bound of those predictions at one point. Now it's 31K. For models to be useful they have to have at least some sort of predictive power. IHME models are total bullshit that, if the feds 100% believed in it, would have caused a complete disaster due to NY hoarding massive quantities of equipment and supplies they did not need. Federal field hospital in IHME's home state, WA, was taken down the other day. It did not see a _single_ patient. The Javits temporary hospital in NY is also almost empty. NY hospitalizations are way down. ICU admissions are down even more steeply. We won't even get the 60K deaths the models are currently predicting. Not even close.