wow!!

I would say that's wrong.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbLtyYBX...pg&name=medium

You should see the graphs for the US. They projected 2 million deaths. We're struggling to get to 200,000.

That raises an interesting question - has anyone compiled the series of projections, dire warnings, and stated goals for the various measures taken? We have gone from some now proven to be wildly inaccurate projections, used as justification for some very restrictive measures to achieve some very clearly stated objectives, like "flattening the curve" and such to what are now vastly different projections and objectives.

If I recall correctly, we have more than achieved the goals that were initially stated - and we were told that when those goals were met, the restrictions would be lifted. Now here we are, with restrictions still in place (and some clamoring for a renewal of some of the earlier ones), having achieved the goals that were used to justify them. The objectives are clearly a moving target. It now appears, at least in my state, that the only acceptable number of new infections is zero, and restrictions will remain in place until that is achieved. Ludicrous... simply ludicrous...

I would like to see all of this captured on a time line, showing projections vs real numbers, stated goals and when they were achieved, newly introduced or revised goals, when projections were revised, what the real numbers were and when, etc. Is anyone aware of any such compilation?

the high death estimates were for no mitigation measures

I'd LOVE to see this too Jeff. I wonder it's been done.....yet(?)

I remember them saying on the news way back in March or April that the projection of 2 million was accounting for the mitigation measures we have been enjoying.

Misunderstanding the math, Trump embraced a coronavirus death toll we’ll soon surpass

Misunderstanding the math, Trump embraced a coronavirus death toll we’ll soon surpass

By Philip Bump

April 23, 2020 at 2:18 p.m. EDT

When the White House announced its recommendation last month that Americans refrain from meeting in groups and take other steps to contain the spread of the coronavirus, it presented a chart suggesting that doing so could avoid the worst-case scenario of infections. Without mitigation efforts, models of the spread of the disease estimated that as many as 2.2 million Americans could die of covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. With mitigation? A more modest 100,000 to 220,000 deaths. Still a lot, but obviously far better.

It was a hard message for President Trump, for a variety of reasons. No president wants to tell the public that the best-case scenario from a crisis is that hundreds of thousands of people would die. But that’s what the data showed, and so that’s what was presented in defense of urging people to stay home.

As time passed, the models were revised with new information. One leading model used by the White House, created by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, used new information about distancing measures in Europe and the United States to shift its downward estimate for the death toll from 90,000 to a little over 60,000.

Trump relished the change.

With 60,000 deaths, “you can never be happy,” Trump said at a briefing on April 10, shortly after the model revision. “But that’s a lot fewer than we were originally told and thinking. So they said between [100,000] and 220,000 lives on the minimum side, and then up to 2.2 million lives if we didn’t do anything. But it showed a just tremendous resolve by the people of this country. So we’ll see what it ends up being, but it looks like we’re headed to a number substantially below the 100,000. That would be the low mark. And I hope that bears out.”

“We did the right thing,” he said a bit later, “because maybe it would have been 2 million people died instead of whatever that final number will be, which could be 60, could be 70, could be 75, could be 55. Thousands of people have died.”

A week later, the same argument.

“I think we’ll be substantially, hopefully, below the [100,000] number,” he said. “And I think, right now, we’re heading at probably around 60-, maybe 65,000.”

As recently as Monday, Trump again touted this number.

“We did the right thing, because if we didn’t do it, you would have had a million people, a million and a half people, maybe 2 million people dead,” he said. “Now, we’re going toward 50, I’m hearing, or 60,000 people. One is too many. I always say it: One is too many. But we’re going toward 50- or 60,000 people.”

We are not. We’ll pass 50,000 within days and will likely hit 60,000 deaths by early May. That’s just recorded deaths. The actual death toll will almost certainly be much higher, as deaths outside hospitals and ones that were not preceded by coronavirus tests — including some in early February in California — are added to the total.

^^^ Interestingly, the date of that announcement roughly coincided with the CDC's decision to stop requiring lab-confirmed results in the official case and death counts.

it's also about the time Canada had its worst shooting in history. 16 people.

A positive PCR test is about as reliable as a teenage stoner with narcolepsy.

I'm growing very cynical and suspect such reconciliation wouldn't matter one bit.

As Exhibit A, I present the climate change fear mongers, as aided by the blood thirsty press, who have been erroneously going on with sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world prognostications for at least three or four decades now. And despite being serially wrong (whether due to malfeasance or incompetence), they have succeeded in brain washing the masses into believing CO2 is an existential threat to the planet. Every day is a new opportunity to claim the hottest day here / wettest month there just to remind you how dire the situation is, when in actuality, there's plenty of modern records that contradict many of these bogus claims. But the climate alarmists and media know that the masses are too dumb to fact check them, and if some do, they'll just resort to name calling: naysayers, science deniers, enemies of the planet. That'll show those that get out of line...

And so it goes with the Covid: the media and politicians have stirred up a storm. It's hard to blame anyone for the confusion amd concern that permeated March/April of this year. Those were some scary times.

But for fcuk's sake: It's six month's later and Sweden has reached [essentially] zero Covid deaths for weeks despite limited precautions/lockdowns/masks/etc. That's an amazing result, and it turns the media and political rhetoric upside down: Sweden got it right.

Cue the indoctrinated haters: But their rates were higher than Norway! But less people would have died if they'd not been so reckless! We don't know that it's over, they could have a second wave! Think of all the [pick one: elderly, children, people, with health issues]!

It's the same shiz as the climate alarmists: The science is settled (not true)! It would have been even [pick one: warmer, drier, colder, wetter]! Think of children, the poor, the planet!

In this Idiocracy we live in, there will be no [accepted] public fact checking or reconciliation, nor will those that incrementally take power (in the name of safety!) give you back your freedom when the basis for such actions is later proven to be unwarranted. Tis sad....

We deserve better.

I certainly remember it differently. They provided two sets of stats; one with taking measures and one without. I believe the point of doing this was to show that not taking action would potentially have catastrophic results.

Didn’t the CDC just adjust the actual Covid deaths to about 10,000 people, with the rest having 2 or more pre-existing conditions? Pretty sure that’s relevant.

No, they didn't just adjust the number of deaths. They have been reporting the same info since at least May 8th. In May is was 7% without any other pre existing conditions.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200511143159/https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

Table 4 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 7% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.5 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups

Thanks for expressing it more succinctly. Or to put it another way, 93% who probably would have died of the flu.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion Matt, the data doesn't support it.

2019-2020 U.S. Flu Season: Preliminary Burden Estimates

April 17, 2020

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1599652489.jpg

It was about 80,000 the year prior Shawn. My comment was more directed at the fact that 93% of CV deaths had multiple pre-existing conditions, which are the same people normally killed by the flu.

Excellent Shaun, thanks again for being so entertaining. Predictable, but almost invariably amusing.

By 80,000 you mean 34,000, right?

Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 influenza season

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1599658445.jpg



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1599658542.jpg