Now predicting 81,000 U.S. deaths, down from 93,000 just a few days ago.
Of course anyone who cares about saving lives and rooting for the U.S.A. will think this is great news.
These projections are just about useless. Like your posts.
I would have bet on Laffy but even you manged to beat him to it.
As for the projections being "useless" well take that up with the very far right winger Bill Gates.
Congrats though for being Laffy quicker than he could be himself. You must be so proud. 
And, of course, you also distort cuz it's what you do. I don't only dismiss these results, I dismiss the ones from the CDC even though I like Fauci. And for the same reason. They are based on assumptions about how many people actually will "shelter in place." And most of them are based on the assumption that EVERYONE will. When we know that's bullshit.
That's not politics, that's reality and simple human nature. But even simple is too complicated for you, Hack.
Why do you consider these projections useless? I really would like you to explain your reasoning here. To me it’s good news and I would hope that everyone posting on this board would look at it that way also.
I certainly hope that no one would be “rooting” for higher casualties so as to make Trump look bad. There are (or should be) certain things that transcend politics.
ALL the most optimistic projections are based on EVERYONE observing a self quarantine. And so far not everyone is. So the most basic underlying assumption supporting the numbers -- whether they are Bill Gates' or Dr. Fauci's -- is WRONG. And Fauci has acknowledged this. But I guess you missed that.
I do agree no one should be "rooting" for high casualties for ANY reason. Besides Trump does more than enough to make himself look bad without the worst-case scenario proving true. I'm glad we agree on that.
-- Modified on 4/6/2020 3:48:45 PM
Go back and look at my OP AND my link again. I INTENTIONALLY did NOT use the MOST optimistic projection dummy.
That number would have been 49,000.
They are lowering their projections based on tons of real, raw data they are getting now but of course YOU would know better than Bill Gates, Fauci, the CDC, etc.
Now that the dunce cap is stapled to your head, don't EVER let Laffy take it back.
Kind of like your posts. Also, I never claimed I "know better" than either Gates or Fauci. I know MUCH better than HACK. But that is so easy virtually anyone can do it. You are now free to go ram your head back up Wu's Chink ass again.
But the old Nick would be ashamed to show his face in public ever again if he were to have been caught with his tongue up Laffy's ass like you've been doing for months now.
Please tell us he has video evidence of you with a cock in your mouth, or even up your ass, even that would be less embarrassing than constantly sucking up to LTM like you've been doing.
As I demonstrated only yesterday, you and Hack post in support of each other FAR more than I do with Laffy. But keep on lying. I know it comes naturally to you.
You wouldn't know the truth if it shoved its dick up your Chink ass. But you would enjoy it. Until then, enjoy fellating Hack.
Had you done so, you would have noticed that the COVID 19 projections assume “full social distancing” though May 2020, and, somewhat confusingly, in another section states that the projections assume social distancing through the end of the modeled period in August 2020.
Thus the 81,766 projected deaths by August 4, 2020 that you identify as "great news" assumes full social distancing at least through May and probably till August.
Of course, we know that “full social distancing” is only erratically occurring in our country. All you have to do is watch Trump’s daily press conferences wherein he and the experts bunch together on camera.
Although Nick used the phrase “self quarantine” which is inaccurate, I suspect he meant “full social distancing” and, if so, he is correct that the most basic assumption supporting the projection is not supported by the facts. Hence, the projection at best tells us what the death rate would be if the entire population of Americans followed “full social distancing” – it is not a projection of the likely death rate by August 2020.
It is like saying the lung cancer rates could be reduced by some substantial percent if people would stop smoking- nice to know but pretty much irrelevant to mortality rates.
They are LOWERING their numbers because of the positive affect of social distancing. The more data that comes in, the more they can hone their prediction.
And remember this. The modelling has been consistently higher than the real world data so the current predictions may indeed need to be lowered again.
Nick was not criticizing your post because the foundation’s LOWERING of the numbers is meaningless. The problem is that ALL of the projections they have made – including the 93,000 - assume FULL social distancing which they define as including three different measures (but not a travel ban). But we all know only an unknown percentage of people will honor the social distancing and that is what renders their mortality projection useless in the real world except as an aspirational goal.
What part of FULL do you not understand? And while they did discount for uncertainty, they have no data to estimate how far from the aspirational "full" will play out.
And frankly if 81,000 are going to die by August 2020 “assuming full social distancing” that is horrifying to me. So by saying
“The modeling has been consistently higher than the real world data so the current predictions may indeed need to be lowered again” you have it exactly backwards – they are under -projecting the mortality rate based on a data point they know is not accurate.
What will be the number be given the actual participation in social distancing? Scary.
That's the part you are not getting. When they say "full social distancing", they aren't saying every man, women and child, 24/7, as they know it is impossible to get it to 100%. They have factored that in and they are still high.
How about we look at the U.S. death predictions vs the actual data from just the past few days...
Prediction/Actual:
4/3....1149/974
4/4...1755/1045
4/5...1745/1165
4/6...1967/1255
See a trend here? They are off to the high side by about 33%!!!!
I am not arguing the 81,000 isnt significant. Of course it is. But in comparison to the catastrophic numbers the media was lustfully projecting just weeks ago of 500,000 to 2.2 million????? How bad does that look now?
And compare us to Western Europe as we measure up with them quite well in virtually every per capita metric.
Could all of this change? Of course and we will get to that bridge when we come to it but if you listened to libs you would have thought Trump was General Custer and it appears he is closer to General Patton.
I hope it goes lower and we can open up this economy. I'm getting killed so the sooner the better.
Keep up the good fight Jack.
I hope this thing turns around for you, and for all of us, quickly.
To be fair, this is great news. Though the best interpretation is that all the mitigation we've been doing is having an effect. This is what Fauci means says the models aren't set in stone, and that they change based how society behaves.
The NY Times was able to use phone GPS data to track travel data as a way to measure compliance with stay at home orders. The hard hit areas of tri-state NY, Michigan, and New Orleans appear to have locked down well. Anyone who's been following the projections on the site Jack referenced would see that the update shows that prior to the update, NYC was short about 63000 regular beds and 11000 ICU beds. Now the shortages are about 12000 regular beds and 6000 ICU beds. This is all good news.
These projections are not unlike weather forecasts. Once they are made, they are pretty good at showing what to expect in the short term but can be wildly inaccurate the further out you go.
P.S. It's been a day or so since the great "I dare you to make a post on a certain thread" identity challenge. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly where they want me to post. Maybe its because they know I'll pass and then all the gotcha posts and idiotic grandstanding with virtual high-fives will be proved to be utter bullshit that it is.
-- Modified on 4/6/2020 6:35:14 PM
Are you willing to give Trump SOME credit for this great news?
I am not asking you to give him ALL the credit but can you acknowledge he has done several thing right to mitigate the virus, while still allowing some constructive criticism for his/his teams response?
I am pretty confident ALL the predictions over-predict. It would be political suicide to under-predict. You are just setting yourself up to be judged a failure. So if you take your best science and then over-predict based on that, you are setting yourself up to look like heroes if you can bring it under that high number. This is just the way it is played, regardless of which party is in power.
.
The FDA actually does something similar with regard to drug approvals ... it holds them off the market for ages because it doesn't want any drugs to kill anyone and then they'd get the blame. But this is actually bad policy that has costs millions of lives over the decades. Many drugs save more than they kill. So delaying them from the market means people will die. No one gets blamed for those "natural" deaths. Yet they could have saved more lives than were lost.