The latest California peak projections from the University of Washington

[RandySF]

Estimated Peak: April 26, 2020

Beds Available: 26,654
Beds Needed: 12,421
ICU Beds Available: 1,992
ICU Beds Needed: 1,866



TOTAL PROJECTED DEATHS: 5,086



https://covid19.healthdata.org

[kozar]

1. this could be interpreted as good news

I think I,and most on here,,appreciate good news. thanks for posting Randy, I look forward to your tweets o' da day as I deleted my twitter.. keep fighting the good fight.

Koz

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. I think there's an error on the data for ICU beds

Both say “available” beds; shouldn’t one say “needed”?

[Raine]

3. THANKS for the info nt

[Iliyah]

4. That is a lot of people . . .

[John Fante]

5. Could have been MUCH worse.

California did as good a job as any state in combatting. Doing the opposite of everything Trump says has its advantages.

[Pobeka]

6. Reposting this, that site is using an unvalidated method for projections.

They make the assumption the cumulative case curve is a logistic or gaussian error function, which it's definitely not. They are producing some of the lowest predicitons of the models.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/02/experts-trumps-advisers-doubt-white-houses-240000-coronavirus-deaths-estimate/

[defacto7]

7. I don't take their projections too seriously but

I do look at the available and needed ICU and ventilator info as helpful.

[Pobeka]

8. It's not helpful if the forecast is too low. Planners need a realistic number to allocate resources

[defacto7]

9. True but I doubt the planners follow this website.

They'll probably use the actual numbers and calculate for themselves what their needs and expectations are. The forcasts are not meant for professional consumption, I'm guessing. I'm assuming the actual numbers they use are close enough for my own interest since I don't make the critical decisions they do. The projections I pay little attention to.