General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the coronavirus models aren't totally accurate
Something important is happening as the coronavirus crisis continues: Estimates of its lethality keep going down. On March 31, the White House estimated that, even with social distancing policies in place, between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans would die of covid-19. Anthony S. Fauci recently indicated the governments estimates will soon be revised downward.
The University of Washington model which has been cited by the White House predicted on March 26 that, assuming social distancing stays in place until June 1, U.S. deaths over the next four months would most likely be about 81,000. By April 8, it had made more than five revisions, to get to the current number: 60,415. Thats on par with the number of people estimated to have died of the flu in the 2019-2020 season.
Why is this happening? The modelers are doing their best with what data they can get, much of which initially came from China and Italy.
A group of Stanford University scholars believe that the basic reason that estimates of deaths have had to be revised downward is because without widespread testing from the start, we didnt realize how many mild or asymptomatic cases there would be. That means the denominator those who have been infected is larger than initial estimates and the fatality rate for covid-19 is lower. (If two out of 100 people with the virus die, the fatality rate is 2 percent; if two out of 1,000 die, it is 0.2 percent.) In March, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4 percent of people with the virus had died from it. That would be an astonishingly high fatality rate. Fauci suggested a week later that the actual rate was probably 1 percent, which would still be 10 times as high as the flu. Since then, we have learned that many people, perhaps as many as half, dont have any symptoms. Some studies find that 75 to 80 percent of people infected could be asymptomatic. That means most people infected with the virus never get to a clinic and never get counted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-mass-testing-were-flying-blind-through-this-crisis/2020/04/09/bf61e178-7a9b-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html
FarPoint
(12,275 posts)We need Massive Testing.. isolation the Retest. Everyone needs to participate...
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)well as other countries and not counted as COVID-19. China been dishonest from day one
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,505 posts)In Arkansas slightly more than 15K test have been done in a population of more than 3M. Approximately 7.5% of those tests are positive. Apparently, only people with symptoms are currently being tested. There is no way of knowing how many asymptomatic people are out there spreading the disease.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)zonemaster
(232 posts)Early on, who knew what, if any, social distancing constraints the 50 different states would ask for. Even if you knew all of those, you have no idea at the beginning what the compliance rate would be. Woefully inadequate testing means you really don't have quality data to put into the model - even now! The exponential nature of the spread also means that a little difference in the date social restrictions are put into place, how many churches and spring breakers are violating them, etc. can cause huge differences in the trajectory of the disease. Given this and a lot of unknowns still about the virus, expecting a model to be predictive early-on, let alone projected very far into the future, is completely unreasonable.
Chainfire
(17,446 posts)the SISO factor.
Projections without good data is as reliable as a Ouija board. Much like the theories that Trump pulls out of his rump.
crickets
(25,950 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)crickets
(25,950 posts)Are the death counts reliable? Highly unlikely, so the data is garbage at this point.