Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[
As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, ...
Just last week Trump got mad at the governor of Georgia for opening his state too soon. Now the NYT says Trump is pushing for states to reopen? When was this published?
University of Washington? The article stated it was from "government modeling" pulled together in a chart by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Do you have a link to the U of W model?
I caught just the tail end of a conversation on NPR today. What I gleaned from that partial conversation was
1) this new model data is from a Johns Hopkins researcher
2) it has nothing to do with the current administration, and they don't know how that mistaken impression took hold
I caught just the tail end of a conversation on NPR today. What I gleaned from that partial conversation was
1) this new model data is from a Johns Hopkins researcher
2) it has nothing to do with the current administration, and they don't know how that mistaken impression took hold
Well that's interesting....to have the NYT say is was from a chart from the Federal Emergency office and NPR to say it was Hopkins. Got a link? If not, I'll search around tomorrow.
Did the testers say, "You had this in January" or did they say "You've had it"? Big difference.
I'm getting annoyed at this "pre-existing condition" excuse. It's still Covid that killed the patient. And people seldom die from colds, even at 97, with pre-existing conditions.
Sorry, if you've smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years, and have lung cancer, COVID didn't kill you. Smoking did.
Well that's interesting....to have the NYT say is was from a chart from the Federal Emergency office and NPR to say it was Hopkins. Got a link? If not, I'll search around tomorrow.
Thanks. I see the model originated with John Hopkins, given to FEMA (part of the administration...going to your point #2), and called a draft government report. The OP does state that it's not an official WH document and hasn't been vetted.
Some of the problems I see with the NYT article via your link are 1) the NYT not saying that it originated with JH (though perhaps they left that out because in your cbs article, it states that the story was leaked to the NYT. Might be a clue?) and 2) it sure seems like they should have made clearer that this was about various scenarios not some firm forecasts. That's the biggie to me.
From your link: "... "These preliminary analyses were provided to FEMA to aid in scenario planning — not to be used as forecasts — and the version published is not a final version. These preliminary results are not forecasts, and it is not accurate to present them as forecasts."
"The information illustrates that there are some scenarios, including the premature relaxation of social distancing, that are likely to cause significant increases in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States," the statement continued.
But many states reopening their businesses have failed to meet the White House's own criteria for when to move to the first phase of reopening.
Scott Gottlieb, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, tweeted Monday that the curve of cases may have flattened in the U.S., but it has plateaued instead of dropping — and that's as states look to reopen.
"We still have spread at a high level: 30K cases a day and 2,000 deaths," Gottlieb tweeted. "We've reached a national plateau for 30+ days. But in more than 20 states outside New York region, cases and hospitalizations are still rising. We need to prepare to deal with covid as a persistent threat."
President Trump said during a Fox News town hall Sunday night that coronavirus deaths in the U.S. could reach 100,000, after only days ago saying deaths could be 60,000 or 70,000. Deaths surpassed 68,000 in the U.S. on Monday."
"...
On Monday the New York Times published what appeared to be an explosive finding: an internal document from the Trump Administration that forecast many more coming deaths from the coronavirus than the president has predicted publicly.
Specifically, the document included projections that in the coming weeks the rate of daily new infections in the United States will rise so precipitously that by June 1 more than 200,000 people per day will be contracting the virus — and more than 3,000 people per day will be dying. (For comparison, currently the U.S. is confirming about 27,000 new cases and 1,800 deaths each day — for a cumulative death toll of about 69,000. And on Sunday, President Trump said he expected total deaths to top out at about 100,000.)
But there's an important caveat to this story. NPR contacted the epidemiologist who came up with the projections in the internal document, Justin Lessler of Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. Lessler says the projections cited in the document do not represent his final forecast. Rather they were part of work that's still very much in progress — in other words, incomplete.
"It's as if somebody looked over my shoulder when I was halfway through putting the work together and took a picture and put the results out there,"..."
Here's 5 questions they asked the administration (answers in links for those interested)
How did these projections come to be included in the internal administration document?
Why does Lessler consider his projections incomplete? What was missing?
What is the administration's response?
But Lessler has said the projections did assume some degree of mitigation. To what extent?
How many COVID-19 deaths would be predicted by a complete version of Lessler's model? (answer supplied here by OP)
Lessler says that while he has added in more simulations than the ones reflected in the internal document, he's still finalizing his projection. And in any case, once that work is complete, Hopkins' contract with FEMA prevents him from disclosing the results to the public. That said, Lessler cautions that the incomplete projection published in The New York Times of more than 200,000 new cases and more than 3,000 new deaths per day by June 1 is just one of many possible scenarios. And right now, "I do not know if it is likely."
So. It sure seems like the NYT jumped the gun for a scoop and, if I'm reading right, or assuming right, took the/a worse case scenario and ran with it.
Johns Hopkins made a statement about this leaked model saying:
The document was intended to illustrate scenarios, including relaxing restrictions on businesses, travel and social distancing that has brought the economy to a standstill in recent weeks. The information was intended to highlight what might cause significant increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths throughout the United States, the statement said.
"These preliminary analyses were provided to FEMA to aid in scenario planning — not to be used as forecasts — and the version published is not a final version," the school said in a statement. "These preliminary results are not forecasts, and it is not accurate to present them as forecasts."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
