Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How exactly are there "only" supposed to be 60,000 deaths? [View all]dawg
(10,697 posts)45. Back when that model projected 68,000 deaths, the website said the model assumed ...
current levels of social distancing maintained until the end of May.
Now that the projection has been lowered to 60,000, it says it assumes current levels of social distancing are maintained "until infections minimized and containment implemented".
In other words, this projection is based on an alternate universe to the one we are living in. In *this* timeline, social distancing is already eroding even as deaths continue to peak.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Only by flattening the curve, sustainably. But it could easily be four times that if "opened up". nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2020
#1
Trump will keep moving the target no matter how it shakes out he'll declare victory:
captain queeg
Apr 2020
#2
By August it should be clearer whether we have a nice German death curve or an Italian one
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2020
#12
60,000 seems really low, I'll be surprised if the US does not pass that within the next 2 to 3 weeks
Celerity
Apr 2020
#21
Yes, a lot more. There were 4500 yesterday, the highest daily total so far. At that rate it's 31k...
brush
Apr 2020
#16
A reporter needs to ask malevolent in WH, JUST 60,000? What do you mean by JUST?
RestoreAmerica2020
Apr 2020
#6
Your reply is totally irrelevant. I posted data showing how innacurate your favorite model is.
greyl
Apr 2020
#55
Wow. You're really invested, aren't you? But the discussion here is the validity
Squinch
Apr 2020
#37
Why on earth not? Seems highly illogical and self-defeating. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2020
#43
I asked "why not?" after you wrote "I don't click DU blue links." I'm stonkered why you might even
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2020
#49
There are already 37,000 deaths. It won't be 25% of the current rate for 3 months
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2020
#10
Very impressive calculations...and I think very likely to happen...the best if we continue to
Demsrule86
Apr 2020
#17
This. Thank you. Watching the trends, this is just about the same as my calculations.
Squinch
Apr 2020
#25
Typo in first calculations (week 2). Rather than edit, I will repost now
Bernardo de La Paz
Apr 2020
#44
Back when that model projected 68,000 deaths, the website said the model assumed ...
dawg
Apr 2020
#45
It won't help if Trump and his allies attempt shell games to obscure the truth for political reasons
Tom Rinaldo
Apr 2020
#46