You are misrepresenting the conclusions of that report. The report clearing distinguishes between "mitigation" and "suppression" in the second paragraph. > How

You are misrepresenting the conclusions of that report. The report clearing distinguishes between "mitigation" and "suppression" in the second paragraph. > However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option. The aggressive social distancing implemented in the U.S. falls under "suppression," and therefore is not considered in the predictions you quoted: > suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population Two paragraphs after the bit you quoted: > We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound. Many countries have adopted such measures already, but even those countries at an earlier stage of their epidemic (such as the UK) will need to do so imminently. The report predicted 5,600-48,000 deaths in Great Britain if all four interventions discussed were put in place. The UK has had ~26,000 deaths. This prediction for GB (suppression) is 80-98% lower than the prediction you quoted (mitigation). A naive application of these ratios to the US suggests that the predicted number of deaths with all interventions would be something like 24,000 - 220,200. The U.S. is currently at ~60,000 deaths. So, erm, no - the United States has not "beat every single expert pre-peak total deaths prediction; by a lot."