based on raw numbers and not taking into account unknowns (this is a novel virus, afterall) that made sense.
The alternative was to underplay it like that VA preacher who thought it was all hype. Yeah...he died of COVID today.
I'll reiterate, the reason why South Korea did so well was the MASSIVE testing and retesting regimen which flattened their curve massively.
China dicked around and once they saw that their curve was about to hit escape velocity, they instituted a brutal quarantine and literally pulled people from their homes if they were symptomatic.
Italy didn't and while they are finally seeing a flattening of new cases, they will still see deaths from the cases within the last 3 weeks. And we've not seen how southern Italy will respond.
The US only really went into lockdown around the 15th give or take and it's still not really a lockdown. In FL, I still see people taking walks together or exercising, I still see carloads of people going places as I go to pick up my son from work... plenty of places that are non-essential are still open. He works in a call center.
When you look at what is happening in NYC and Atlanta (both homes to very busy airports and with decent population density as well as Northern NJ (again, very busy airport, Newark, and decent population density), they are just the tip of how it's gonna play out.
Will we see 2.2M dead? No. That was always a possibility based on the Rø and initial mortality rates, but we at still at the early phases in the US of seeing the death toll.
Remember at the beginning of this thread how folks really diminished the threat? Now, we're gonna diminish the number of dead like we can't learn?
Nah, fam. Not me. This is gonna be real for months.
Oh, and when there's another flare up in China, you can say you heard it here, first.
Your post is full of suppositions and assertions that are unsupported by data. The 2.2. million figure was never supported by any actual data, it was just supported by a fear-mongering computer model for which the author now won't even release his code. And again, his initial estimate overstated his current estimate by a factor of
25. If you followed the reasoning, the author stated that the virus has probably been transmitted much more widely than previously believed, which means many more than just those who tested for it have come into contact with it, and thus the virus is not nearly as deadly as originally feared. And here we are, a few months into this pandemic, and in a country of 330 million people, we finally topped 1000 deaths. Given that the lockdowns didn't start until about mid-March, two and a half months into the year if the virus has been spreading for all of that time, then it really isn't anywhere near as deadly as the doomsayers would have us believe. For people without pre-existing medical conditions, it suggests a probability of death in line with probability of death for all causes, i.e. no effective change.
Yet based on that model, we shut down our economy to the tune of
3.3 MILLION new jobless claims this week. In a labor force of approximately 164 million, that represents a near-instantaneous 2% jump in the unemployment rate, which was hovering around 3% prior to that, which translates now into about a 5% unemployment rate. A few pages back, I posted a link to an article with regard to the economic costs of a continued shutdown. Pertinent quote:
The health of the economy is not as important as the health of the citizenry. However, the two are interconnected. You can’t crush the economy without exacting a human toll. In a 2018 academic article, Taiwanese researchers Yu-Hui Lin and Wen-Yi Chen
showed a link between unemployment and suicide, one that may linger for two to three years after the job market has improved. These findings suggest that even a short, sharp recession has lasting consequences.
In rough terms, they postulate that each 1% rise in unemployment leads to one additional suicide per 100,000 people, and a rise in divorces of up to 1%. If unemployment jumps by 5% in the current shutdown of the U.S. economy, that would translate into some 16,500 additional suicides and up to 3 million divorces. The human toll is very real.
We've just seen a 2% jump in unemployment. At one additional suicide per 100,000 population that adds up to 6600 additional suicides. So tell me, why are 1000 Wuhan virus deaths more tragic than 6600 suicides? Why is the virus death total unacceptable, but the death total from additional unemployment-fueled suicides is just hunky fucking dory no problem whatsoever? You complain about people diminishing the dead at the beginning of this thread, yet I see you doing the same thing now when it comes to the human toll of an economic meltdown - one that is almost entirely fueled by our current response to this crisis.
A lot of those jobs won't come back either. Many businesses are going to fold (some already have) and many people will lose their livelihoods. And if we take your approach you appear to favor, staying locked down for a long time, it will be much, much worse. That's not just people worrying about the Dow or their 401ks, that's people worrying about making a living, worrying about how to save for their kids education, worrying about putting food on the table. There is a serious human cost in responding to this virus the way we are doing it, and from the data we know now, it's exceeding the cost of the Wuhan virus by leaps and bounds.
An effective response to a crisis like this requires balancing three things - security (which includes public health), civil liberties, and economics. Right now the response throughout most of the country is focusing almost entirely on the first with a near total disregard for the other two. And from the tone of your post above, as well as others you have written in this thread, you are just fine with that, oblivious to the costs from ignoring the other two. You previously stated that you are in an at-risk category, and if so, you should take extra care to quarantine yourself. But when you complain about other people taking walks or exercising, you are suggesting that their rights should be limited, which suggests at best a tepid commitment to the rights and liberties of others. Complaining about businesses you consider to be non-essential to be open, as well as your apparent fervor for a long-term lockdown suggests at best a tepid commitment to the economic aspect of the crisis. And you don't seem to have a problem imposing your preferred solution on an entire population, irrespective of the fact that your preferred solution doesn't enhance their security, curtails their civil liberties, and diminishes their economic prospects.
If you are that scared, quarantine yourself. Those who are in the at-risk categories should be doing so anyway. But any sympathy I have for your condition goes out the window the instant you let your fear override your judgment to the point that you advocate taking away the rights of others for your preferred solution, and that's where you are at now.
The words below aren't mine, but the thoughts behind them comport with what I am thinking. YMMV.