Sharkey
Word Ninja
The projections from the White House, which are the more conservative ones that I've seen, are not based solely on mortality rates in comparison to confirmed cases...obviously they are no longer testing anyone unless they have a strong suspicion of infection...they are based on models they believe how the infection will spread, and how many they believe will be hospitalized...
When the Donald is telling us that he should be getting a pat on the back for limiting deaths to only 100,000, that alone should be enough to concern you...
So, you will believe it when you believe it....
See my post above. Clearly the White House projections are not as conservative as those of the IHME.
In any event, while 100,000 deaths is tragic for sure, if we had to send the country into a depression to get to that 100,000 number I would sure like to know, realistically, what the number would have been without sending the country into a depression. Unfortunately, there is no way to arrive at that real number (what could have been) because it is impossible to have a control group.
Do I personally think a depression would be worth it to save 2.2 million lives? Most likely, yes. But, I don't believe the 2.2 million lives lost number is realistic, even in a complete herd immunity response. Do I personally think a depression would be worth it to save 100,000 lives (the difference between the WH's projected 100k and a random 200k that I came up with for discussion purposes), the answer is most likely no.