
Fauci: US can expect more than 100k Covid-19 deaths, millions of cases - ajaviaad
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/29/fauci-how-many-coronavirus-deaths-in-us-estimate/
======
mirekrusin
I'm not professional and my napkin/google calculation shows something closer
to 327.2 million * 0.7 * 0.01 = two million two hundred ninety thousand four
hundred deaths - is it stupid?

~~~
throwaway8291
No, not stupid. It's one scenario, but the time span is absent: do we reach
0.7 in three years or three months? At the current rate probably the latter,
which might increase the 0.01 as well, because of a certain overwhelming of
the health care system in the US (e.g. a young boy in California has not been
treated because he could not pay, so he died).

~~~
bagacrap
If you're talking about the case I think you're talking about,

""" However, Los Angeles’ County Department of Public Health later said the
teen’s death was taken off a list of deaths associated with Covid-19 in the
area. The department said the CDC would complete an investigation into the
teen’s death. It remained unclear what symptoms he may have been experiencing
prior to his death. """

The 17yo fatality that Gavin Newsom mentioned in a news report was also later
reclassified as not CV related.

The late 21yo patient in the UK was never tested for CV.

The media do not have a great track record here.

------
martythemaniak
This was posted here a while back:
[https://neherlab.org/covid19/](https://neherlab.org/covid19/)

They have number of deaths displayed, so if you try to match the observed rate
and keep total deaths below 200k... well, it's doable, but with pretty strong
assumptions.

------
BenoitEssiambre
Isn't that just like 2x seasonal flu death numbers? This seems like a very
conservative estimate.

~~~
dannykwells
This is conservative, but also, this is happening in a very short time frame,
AND is taking into account all of the social distancing AND is happening at
the same time as flu.

Without the distancing measures we have in place we would be looking at
millions of deaths.

Once this is over, it will be very tempting to say, "Look it was only as bad
as flu, we shouldn't have trashed the economy just for that..." but that of
course is not fair reasoning. We _only_ will have 200k deaths because of the
distancing.

~~~
mirekrusin
But social distancing can make at most order of magnitude difference
(generous, semi-arbitrary) - which is still way too small change, it just
spreads a lot of deaths in time, doesn't stop all of them, right?

~~~
manicdee
Spreading out cases over time means what might have been a death in a crowded,
overworked hospital is a recovery in a moderately challenged hospital where
the concerns are fresh face masks rather than available hands.

~~~
mirekrusin
I know and I don't argue that. I gave 10x less deaths for that, which is
generous - but that still means deaths counted in millions.

------
brohoolio
This is so sad.

We need a country wide lockdown for 8 to 10 weeks to get ahead of the virus.
Give the scientists and doctors sometime to figure out potential mitigations.

I’m almost certain that his estimates are too low unless we can get ahead of
it.

------
ohazi
I haven't been shouting from the rooftops because I'm not an epidemiologist
and don't really want to get into an argument, but none of the low/medium/high
death estimates that I've seen have seemed plausible to me. The back-of-the-
envelope math that I've been doing would put most of them about half an order
of magnitude too low.

From what I can tell, the best-case death estimate in the US should be around
1-2 million, and the worst case should be around 5-10 million. Does this seem
wildly off?

This is based on the varying death rates in other countries that have had
controlled/mild/manageable outbreaks (e.g. South Korea, Singapore) vs. severe
outbreaks (e.g. Italy, Iran). The overall death numbers also seem to change
depending on how overrun the hospitals are (going from, e.g. 0.9% to ~3%+),
national demographics, etc. I'm also assuming an eventual population infection
rate of 40% - 70%.

I'd obviously be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I honestly don't understand
how people are coming up with numbers that are so much more optimistic.

~~~
Leary
There's no reason why 40-70% of people will inevitably get infected.
California daily new cases already plateued

~~~
kennywinker
I think that number might be coming from the idea that at that level of
infection you'd get herd immunity - i.e. this thing is going to keep going
around until we hit herd immunity.

~~~
Leary
Reaching herd immunity level is a possibility but not inevitable

~~~
kennywinker
With the current tools we have, it seems inevitable to me. Look at china or
hong kong... lockdown led to getting local infections under control, which
leads to an easing of restrictions, which lead to new infections from outside
of the region. So by that logic, life doesn't get to go back to "normal" until
either herd immunity is reached, or new tools come online.

------
Fnoord
[https://archive.is/ZA6zW](https://archive.is/ZA6zW)

------
vondur
How about they start treating these people with Hydroxychloroquine and
azithromycin? It seems to work. Has to be better than letting people die or
suffer permanent lung damage.

~~~
anonymous45235
>
> [https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1243269061733220353](https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1243269061733220353)

> All "VIP"s are immediately put on Hydroxychloroquine when they show the
> first symptom. Even before a test. (waiting for the test results takes way
> too long and gives the virus time to ruin your lungs!).

