Quote:
Originally Posted by Donger
Well, since we did lockdown, we'll never know how accurate the 1 to 2 million dead estimate was, right?
Here. March 29:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...he-coronavirus
Dr. Anthony Fauci said based on modeling of the current pace of the coronavirus' spread in the U.S., "between 100,000 and 200,000" people may die from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
Fauci's comments on CNN's State of the Union underscore just how far away the U.S. is from the peak of the outbreak based on predictions from top federal officials. As of early Sunday afternoon, there were 125,000 cases in the U.S. and nearly 2,200 deaths, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.
Public health experts say that because of undocumented chains of transmission in many parts of the country, the number of new coronavirus cases in the U.S. is set to keep surging as more and more test results become known.
Fauci said the 100,000-to-200,000 death figure is a middle-of-the-road estimate, much lower than worse-case-scenario predictions.
He said preparing for 1 million to 2 million Americans to die from the coronavirus is "almost certainly off the chart," adding: "Now it's not impossible, but very, very unlikely."
I'd like to see the estimate that Sweden could have faced 100,000 deaths. I presume that was the high end? |
'Uppsala University took the Imperial College model – or one of them – and adapted it to Sweden and forecasted deaths in Sweden of over 90,000 by the end of May if there was no lockdown and 40,000 if a full lockdown was inforced. In fact, there have only been 4,350 deaths in Sweden until the end of May. This does seem to be a huge discrepancy and suggests there was something wrong with the model...'
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...be-replicated-
The Imperial College model was used by the US and UK governments as a basis for lockdown.
The Imperial College model has been proven to be spectacularly wrong.