CDC Situation Update, New Projections in Internal Report

[Juvenal]

CDC Situation Update

The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.
Draft report predicts covid-19 cases will reach 200,000 a day by June 1
CDC document projects as many as 3,000 coronavirus deaths per day by June

2020-05-04_16-50-35.jpg
Page 10 of 19

2020-05-04_16-52-56.jpg
Page 11 of 19

These are log scales* because any epidemic is essentially exponential in both growth and decay. That means the halfway point between 500 and 1000 is √500,0000 or about 700, and that 3,000 is roughly halfway between 700 and 8,500.

The administration is disavowing the report, but there's no disguising the run date in the lower right corner.

I project Dr. Lessler will soon be needing additional security.


*Roughly log scale. The graph incorporates a vertical stretch creating an increasingly larger range between doublings for higher values of cases or deaths. E.g., the vertical distance between 5000 and 10000 is three times that between 500 and 1000 which is three times that between 50 and 100. On a true log scale, these distances would be equal.

[JimL]

CDC Situation Update

The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.
Draft report predicts covid-19 cases will reach 200,000 a day by June 1
CDC document projects as many as 3,000 coronavirus deaths per day by June

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44398[/ATTACH]
Page 10 of 19

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44399[/ATTACH]
Page 11 of 19

These are log scales* because any epidemic is essentially exponential in both growth and decay. That means the halfway point between 500 and 1000 is √500,0000 or about 700, and that 3,000 is roughly halfway between 700 and 8,500.

The administration is disavowing the report, but there's no disguising the run date in the lower right corner.

I project Dr. Lessler will soon be needing additional security.


*Roughly log scale. The graph incorporates a vertical stretch creating an increasingly larger range between doublings for higher values of cases or deaths. E.g., the vertical distance between 5000 and 10000 is three times that between 500 and 1000 which is three times that between 50 and 100. On a true log scale, these distances would be equal.

And is that model dependent upon an opening up of the economy?

[mikewhitney]

Oh great. A new estimate by people who keep failing to make decent estimates.

This means that the quarantines were useless for stopping the virus. If the virus has been spreading so extensively during quarantine, doing a quarantine has only delayed the inevitable. I don't get why people do not stop the nonsense of this quarantine. It never was a useful plan in this situation. We now have to factor in the multitude of suicides, alcoholism, spousal abuse, child abuse, economic collapse, food shortages, and untreated illnesses into the effects of the quarantine. This is all due to a panic response to irresponsible media and governors. Even worse we are leaving this all in the hands of bureaucrats -- the most ignorant option to rely upon.

The good news is that no one is dying of anything else. Wouldn't that make this virus a good thing?

How come no one can see this?

[QuantaFille]

Oh great. A new estimate by people who keep failing to make decent estimates.

This means that the quarantines were useless for stopping the virus. If the virus has been spreading so extensively during quarantine, doing a quarantine has only delayed the inevitable. I don't get why people do not stop the nonsense of this quarantine. It never was a useful plan in this situation. We now have to factor in the multitude of suicides, alcoholism, spousal abuse, child abuse, economic collapse, food shortages, and untreated illnesses into the effects of the quarantine. This is all due to a panic response to irresponsible media and governors. Even worse we are leaving this all in the hands of bureaucrats -- the most ignorant option to rely upon.

The good news is that no one is dying of anything else. Wouldn't that make this virus a good thing?

How come no one can see this?

Quarantine was never meant to stop the virus. It was meant to spread out the individual cases over a greater length of time so the hospitals don't get overwhelmed.

[mikewhitney]

Quarantine was never meant to stop the virus. It was meant to spread out the individual cases over a greater length of time so the hospitals don't get overwhelmed.

The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies. The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed. The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.

Nothing that is being done is consistent with the original goals of the mass quarantine. Then they keep reporting more "cases" of COVID-19 when people actually have been quarantined. This indicates first that the number of cases is meaningless -- it is the number of people tested positive or were thought to be positive (without testing). Second, it would be saying that the quarantine was ineffective because the disease mysteriously migrates to bunches of people who never come in contact with each other.

[QuantaFille]

The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies. The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed. The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.

Nothing that is being done is consistent with the original goals of the mass quarantine. Then they keep reporting more "cases" of COVID-19 when people actually have been quarantined. This indicates first that the number of cases is meaningless -- it is the number of people tested positive or were thought to be positive (without testing). Second, it would be saying that the quarantine was ineffective because the disease mysteriously migrates to bunches of people who never come in contact with each other.

The virus spreads among people who are in contact with each other, usually people who live in the same house, or work together. It isn't feasible for every last person to stay at home for several weeks, as many people work jobs that are essential. My husband is one of those. Plus people have to get groceries, so the grocery stores are still open, and there have been cases where grocery store employees tested positive. How many of their coworkers got it from them before they knew they were contagious?

My point is, there is no way that quarantine, even extreme quarantine, will completely eliminate contact between people. It was only ever meant to greatly reduce contact to slow down transmission of the virus. Even those in quarantine are in contact with people, it's just greatly reduced from normal.

[JimL]

The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies.

Thos who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Had we not quarenteened, put the guidelines into effect, the hospitals would not have had the capacity to care for the sick. They barely have the capacity now. The Spanish flu in 1918 killed some 60 million people and was way beyond what hospitals could handle.

The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed.

Have you been listening to FOX NEWS?

The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.

The point is to stop the spread before those areas where the virus hasn't hit as badly yet end up in the same boat as the harder hit areas.

Nothing that is being done is consistent with the original goals of the mass quarantine.

Of course the quarenteen is working as intended. Why would you say it isn't?

Then they keep reporting more "cases" of COVID-19 when people actually have been quarantined.

So, you think that because there are still more cases, that the quarenteen didn't slow the spread. You think if everyone was walking around as usual, as if there were no virus, that there wouldn't be exponentially more cases.

This indicates first that the number of cases is meaningless -- it is the number of people tested positive or were thought to be positive (without testing). Second, it would be saying that the quarantine was ineffective because the disease mysteriously migrates to bunches of people who never come in contact with each other.

That doesn't even make sense.

[Juvenal]

My point is, there is no way that quarantine, even extreme quarantine, will completely eliminate contact between people. It was only ever meant to greatly reduce contact to slow down transmission of the virus. Even those in quarantine are in contact with people, it's just greatly reduced from normal.

None of the models I've seen assume full compliance with the quarantine.

[Juvenal]

The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies. The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed. The policy should have been to open up areas where the hospitals were quiet. People should have been stopped the general quarantine and let the hospitals become a bit busy.

This isn't entirely wrong.

The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies.

with R = 1.5 or 0.5.

2020-05-05_02-29-16.jpg

For the infection rate to experience exponential decay, we need ...

1 - 1/R0, for R0 = 2.4, is 58.3 percent.

The hospitals have often been empty, which means that the quarantine was not needed.

• The initial reproduction rate only applies to those who are susceptible. So the actual reproduction rate is the susceptible proportion of the initial reproduction rate.
  
  Reproduction = R0 * Susceptible
  .
• Which must be less than one for exponential decay.
  
  Reproduction = R0 * Susceptible < 1
  .
• Solving.
  
  Susceptible < 1/R0
  .
• Because it's a new virus, everyone who hasn't been infected is susceptible.
  
  1 - Infected = Susceptible
  .
• Substituting.
  
  1 - Infected < 1/R0
  .
• Add Infected to both sides, subtract 1 / R0
  
  1 - 1/R0 < Infected
  .
• Turn it around.
  
  Infected > 1 - 1/R0

[Sparko]

Internal FEMA document projects spike in daily coronavirus death toll, but data questionedhttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...ata-questioned

[Juvenal]

Internal FEMA document projects spike in daily coronavirus death toll, but data questioned

There's nothing in the Foxnews report that's not covered in the three sources in the o/p.

The difference being that the NY Times broke the story, provided the report, and checked it against the latest IHME projections.

The Washington Post, quoted in the o/p, tracked down the model's creator.

Politico followed with updated information from the IHME director.

Foxnews, well, did Foxnews.

Fox News has confirmed the existence of the document, which was first reported by The New York Times. Sources told Fox News that while a significant portion of the data comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the projections of new cases and deaths come from modeling done at Johns Hopkins University.

No added value.

[Sparko]

There's nothing in the Foxnews report that's not covered in the three sources in the o/p.

The difference being that the NY Times broke the story, provided the report, and checked it against the latest IHME projections.

The Washington Post, quoted in the o/p, tracked down the model's creator.

Politico followed with updated information from the IHME director.

Foxnews, well, did Foxnews.

Fox News has confirmed the existence of the document, which was first reported by The New York Times. Sources told Fox News that while a significant portion of the data comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the projections of new cases and deaths come from modeling done at Johns Hopkins University.

No added value.

The added value is that the NYT is trying to use scare tactics to sell papers, using unverified data that has not been checked by the Coronavirus task force and claiming that "The Trump administration projects..." an outright lie.

[Juvenal]

The added value is that the NYT is trying to use scare tactics to sell papers, using unverified data that has not been checked by the Coronavirus task force and claiming that "The Trump administration projects..." an outright lie.

Conspiracy theories about scare tactics unsupported by even a cursory glance at the original stories aside, Foxnews does not make that argument or specify any data that's unverified. Had you read the stories, or even the post you're quoting, you'd have seen the projections are entirely in line with the IHME projections the administration is using.

That's reckless disregard for the facts, Sparko, meaning the lie is entirely on you.

[Sparko]

Conspiracy theories about scare tactics unsupported by even a cursory glance at the original stories aside, Foxnews does not make that argument or specify any data that's unverified. Had you read the stories, or even the post you're quoting, you'd have seen the projections are entirely in line with the IHME projections the administration is using.

That's reckless disregard for the facts, Sparko, meaning the lie is entirely on you.

Keep dreaming. The NYT wrote the article characterizing it as something the Trump administration is hiding. When in fact, it is just some internal data that wasn't vetted by anyone official and it doesn't take into account things like mitigation factors in place.

[mikewhitney]

This isn't entirely wrong.

The virus should not have persisted through this time since people would have gotten over it by now and had the antibodies.

I understand in your position you like to think that this model is the intellectual look at the virus, but the model does not really represent what is happening. The numbers don't support this model. The reality is different. We have no indications that the virus is causing as widespread death as modeled. The models are bunk so far, so I'm not sure why you present another model. We can call this YAVM -- yet another virus model.

We were told to do the quarantines to moderate the number of hospitalizations, but the hospitals in most places are empty. So we need to give up on the quarantines before the suicides, alcholism, etc. increase all the more and overtake any predicted covid-19 deaths. This has been a failed experiment... and we followed the (as your model would suggest) failed methodology of quarantines

Deal with the reality.

And I'm glad you are looking forward to President Pence in 2024.