Coronavirus: US could see 2,300 deaths a day, even with social distancing, study says

[jpn]

The question remains how long the unemployed will remain unemployed and how scorched the land will become before this shutdown panic is over.

Thanks to the Democrats, the unemployed will be better off during their unemployment, and fewer jobs will be eliminated so that the recovery will be quicker.

 

[Helix]

Let's ****ing hope not.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I don't know, we've been doing good thus far. We are getting into the explosion part of the spread, but still we've only had 1300 deaths on 86000 cases. That's pretty good...well it's about 1.5% which is 15 times worse than the flu. But compared to Italy, it's pretty good. I think that if we keep being serious about this, we do the social distancing, we complete our stay-at-home directives, that we can keep the damage limited.

We're developing new testing methods and I'm sure we'll find treatment protocols as we go on as well. Things can explode, but only if we're flippant towards the possibilities here.

They spike in US cases occurred mostly in the last week, most deaths seem to occur around 10 days after infection. The US will likely see a spike in deaths in days, along with a spike in infections from college students returning from spring break. It will likely be about 3 weeks before the number of infected at any one time starts to drop. The US has not shut down like parts of Europe, nor did it enact suppression of the virus at the beginning.

The individualistic culture of America is not going to make controlling the virus very easy (especially compared to East Asia, and for example Germany

 

[NWRatCon]

This is what the study projects for where those "hot spots" might be:

 

[Keridan]

I know I shouldn't respond, because that will inspire more idiocy be spilled in the thread, but I am going to make an effort - if only half-heartedly - to get you to engage your brain. Call me Don Quixote.

Do you get the flu shot every year? (like 37% of the population?) Any other vaccinations in your lifetime - even if it was your parents or the school district that insisted upon it? Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive? Do you own a firearm? Do you watch your diet, take vitamins, or medicine when you get sick? I'll wait for an answer before I move to the obvious point (which I suspect you haven't sussed out, yet).

Should go with more accurate comparisons. Dogs bite. Do you burn down your neighbor's house when he brings home a dog that might bite you? People sometimes drive drunk and that kills thousands every year, so the only obvious solution is to take away all cars and blow them up, right? Violent criminals tend to have a high rate of recitivism, so obviously we need to kill all of them and anyone who encouraged that behavior.

Of course this is all totally justified! We are saving lives here! It's just reasonable precautions

 

[Metric Mouse]

I'm genuinely sorry to mention this. I wish the news were better, but the upward trend of both identified cases and deaths has resumed, on track. Nearly 19,000 new cases today, and 400 new deaths, returning to the doubling every 60 hours. I was legitimately hopeful that the previous days' results indicated a slowing in the expansion of the epidemic. No flattening of the curve, yet (although it may be in effect in NYC). Exponential growth every ten days. That would indicate 800 deaths/day, and 40,000 new cases by the 30th of this month. By April 6th (without a break), it'll be 4000 deaths/day and 200,000 cases. I'm a bit deflated.

Yeah, I'm not sure why the article in the op was so optimistic. They're quite likely off by an order of magnitude.

 

[marke]

That's what we're trying to do. Unfortunately, eliminating the hazards and risks involve distancing. That's just the reality of the virus. If we had been more prepared for testing, the economic stress could have been somewhat mitigated.

We can look back at every disaster in history and find ways we could have done better to deal with it than we did.

 

[Michael Cole]

We can look back at every disaster in history and find ways we could have done better to deal with it than we did.

Okay. Is this a refutation of my post or just an addendum?

 

[Michael Cole]

Should go with more accurate comparisons. Dogs bite. Do you burn down your neighbor's house when he brings home a dog that might bite you? People sometimes drive drunk and that kills thousands every year, so the only obvious solution is to take away all cars and blow them up, right? Violent criminals tend to have a high rate of recitivism, so obviously we need to kill all of them and anyone who encouraged that behavior.

Of course this is all totally justified! We are saving lives here! It's just reasonable precautions

Dogs bite. Stay away from dogs. Viruses kill. Stay away from carriers. Makes sense to me. Burning down a house makes absolutely no sense with regard to the dog in the front yard.

 

[snakestretcher]

Don't believe a damn word of this.

Why not? Does the sand irritate your ears?

 

[snakestretcher]

For some reason, 15 minutes after reading a Chinese newspaper, I don't feel like reading another one.

Yes, I can understand why reality and facts are strangers to you. You're a conservative.

 

[snakestretcher]

Consider the source. More deliberate fear-mongering by the anti-American leftist freaks, as expected. In the words of anti-American leftist Rahm Emanuel, "never let a good crisis go to waste."

We had 48,400 deaths in the US from the flu last year with more than 200 people dying every day during its peak. Yet nothing about "social isolation" or the level of panic in 2019 that we see being peddled by leftist scum in the US today. Of course 2019 wasn't an election year, but 2020 is. Which explains Democrats suddenly obsession with COVID-19 and the panic they are intentionally inciting in the hopes the chaos and economic disruption will give them some political advantage. It is a common Democrat tactic to put people's lives at risk in order to try to score a few political points. We see it all the time during every natural disaster. This is just another example of Democrat fear-mongering in order to cause as much harm as possible.

The source has much expertise derived from experience to offer. Can you guess why that might be? Try really hard.

 

[marke]

Sounds like you're in favor of universal healthcare coverage and a social safety net. Welcome aboard!

Of course I would be for free healthcare if it was not so expensive.

 

[marke]

Thanks to the Democrats, the unemployed will be better off during their unemployment, and fewer jobs will be eliminated so that the recovery will be quicker.

I like optimism, just not misguided expectations. Obama predicted in his campaign that he would get the economy going again in 3 years. He did get it going again, but not really to the degree people were expecting until about 3 months into Trump's administration.

 

[snakestretcher]

As I sit here in isolation, with too much time on my hands, I am a bit Coronobsessed. I care for and about others, which is why I am in isolation (to protect my loved ones). I get queasy thinking about the tragedy that so many families are going through. I have spent an inordinate amount of time waiting outside of ICU rooms, and in them, so I know the fret and worry that accompanies such a situation. COVID-19 is not a quick killer. It lingers, and tortures its victims. I know what it means to have to breathe with a ventilator, and how long it can take to wean one from it, and how awful (and iffy) that process can be. It's personal.

As I've mentioned before, I was once an EMT. I also worked for a (long) time in Emergency Management for my State. So, I understand the process of planning for the worst. I understand modeling and preparation, and recovery. I do my own because it is an interest of mine. And, I admit, I get offended when people treat this so cavalierly. It's unprofessional and inhuman. And, I get mightily offended (okay, royally pissed off) when people make spurious, really, really sick claims like "liberals want to see more people die" and other such indecent partisan blather. Exactly the opposite is true (but that is true about most of the uber-partisan blather spewed here). Liberals actually care about their fellow citizens, and other denizens of the country and the world, so of course that has to be dissed.

Nevertheless, I will persist. I will continue to apply processes to data, and post my findings here. It is an intellectual and moral imperative for me. Because, I care. And I am aware that there are other people here who also care. For those who don't: piss off. Find someplace else to post your blather, inanities and insults.

It's been two weeks for me now. Fortunately I have plenty at home to keep me occupied and, frankly, at my age (67) socialising, other than with a few close friends, lost its importance years ago so my lifestyle really hasn't changed much. I also worked in the medical field in cervical pathology as a component of our cervical cancer screening programme, so I am very familiar with modelling and projections where strategies for treatment are concerned-as well as the stress and exhaustion in front line staff caused by pressures of work. Right now they're doing work for which they should be beatified.
Britain has been locked down for a while now and we are only permitted to leave home for food shopping, exercise once a day (away from others), and medical needs. The police now have the power to disperse groups of more than two people, and impose fines for the idiots refusing to comply.
This crisis is beyond politics; fortunately both main parliamentary parties here are working together and leaving ideological differences aside.

 

[marke]

Okay. Is this a refutation of my post or just an addendum?

Now is not the time for all good Americans to throw rocks at politicians they oppose as though those opposing politicians are the cause of this disaster.

 

[Keridan]

Dogs bite. Stay away from dogs. Viruses kill. Stay away from carriers. Makes sense to me. Burning down a house makes absolutely no sense with regard to the dog in the front yard.

So not worried at all on making your comparisons analogous to what is currently happening I guess

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Yes, I can understand why reality and facts are strangers to you. You're a conservative.

When your only tool is a hammer, everyone starts to look like a nail. Your shtick is old and in this case, humorless.

 

[poweRob]

Humans. They seem to have a flair for the dramatic, the alarming, and the fantastic. It does not look that the US will reach the 80,000 mark in just a matter of weeks, but let's wait and see. If it does not reach that number the false prophets can always say the shelter in place policies were what saved the day, no matter that they will never be able to prove that. It is like the rain man predicting his dance will save the frontier town from flooding if they hire him to do it for them. If the town does not flood he can say his rain dance saved them. If the town still floods he can say they did not respond fast enough to his offer or did not pay him enough to get the job done successfully. The reality is the likelihood of flooding at all would have no doubt been practically nil with or without a dance.

So,.you going to church tomorrow marke?

 

[jpn]

I like optimism, just not misguided expectations. Obama predicted in his campaign that he would get the economy going again in 3 years. He did get it going again, but not really to the degree people were expecting until about 3 months into Trump's administration.

If he had had the economic stimulus that the GOP showered on Trump, unemployment would have been reduced to around 4% by 2014.

 

[marke]

So,.you going to church tomorrow marke?

Not this time. I plan to stay home so others can go while keeping the number small enough to satisfy the fearful in our town.

 

[marke]

If he had had the economic stimulus that the GOP showered on Trump, unemployment would have been reduced to around 4% by 2014.

You think Obama had no stimulus money? How old were you during the Obama administration?

 

[poweRob]

Not this time. I plan to stay home so others can go while keeping the number small enough to satisfy the fearful in our town.

That's what I thought.

 

[jpn]

You think Obama had no stimulus money? How old were you during the Obama administration?

My bad. Knowing how posters are quick to assume the worst of their opponents, I should have been more clear. I wrote that if Trump had had the economic stimulus that the GOP showered on Trump, unemployment would have been reduced to around 4% by 2014.

When the Republicans took the House in January 2011, they instituted contractionary fiscal policy. Their excuse at the time was that they were just SO CONCERNED about deficits, despite unemployment of 9 percent. What they were really doing was knowingly sabotaging the economy so that they could win the White House in 2012. When you look at the cumulative impact that policy had on growth, and the implied effect on the unemployment rate (assuming 1% GDP = 0.5% unemployment, which is standard), you get this:



See? 4% unemployment by 2014.

But the Republican Party chose to play political games with the US economy. When I think of all the social evils brought by unemployment--divorce, spouse and child abuse, depression and suicides--it was really incredible to then watch Republicans turn around and hand $1 to 2 trillion to the richest of the rich in 2017 when the economy was doing just fine and unemployment was at record lows.

To answer your other question, I was what, 53 in 2008. I have a graduate degree in political science from the University of Washington. I am also a retired Navy Commander (Surface Warfare).

I answered your personal question. Now please answer mine: What is your highest educational achievement?

 

[marke]

My bad. Knowing how posters are quick to assume the worst of their opponents, I should have been more clear. I wrote that if Trump had had the economic stimulus that the GOP showered on Trump, unemployment would have been reduced to around 4% by 2014.

When the Republicans took the House in January 2011, they instituted contractionary fiscal policy. Their excuse at the time was that they were just SO CONCERNED about deficits, despite unemployment of 9 percent. What they were really doing was knowingly sabotaging the economy so that they could win the White House in 2012. When you look at the cumulative impact that policy had on growth, and the implied effect on the unemployment rate (assuming 1% GDP = 0.5% unemployment, which is standard), you get this:

View attachment 67276660

See? 4% unemployment by 2014.

But the Republican Party chose to play political games with the US economy. When I think of all the social evils brought by unemployment--divorce, spouse and child abuse, depression and suicides--it was really incredible to then watch Republicans turn around and hand $1 to 2 trillion to the richest of the rich in 2017 when the economy was doing just fine and unemployment was at record lows.

To answer your other question, I was what, 53 in 2008. I have a graduate degree in political science from the University of Washington. I am also a retired Navy Commander (Surface Warfare).

I answered your personal question. Now please answer mine: What is your highest educational achievement?

There is a reason Americans elected more republicans than democrats in 2016, and it was not because republicans were seen as failing the American people.