Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Good to know that "number of deaths per day" is the real story, as per mickey crimm. I don't know about you, but to me, 700 per day deaths does not seem like winning, unless you're Charlie Sheen.
There is no trick to this. The reduction in deaths was directly attributable to the shutdowns and younger people now getting the disease. Previously, deaths trailed hospitalizations by three to four weeks. As health professionals have gotten a handle on what works and what does not (method of intubation, for example, and how patients should be positioned while intubated), the lag has increased a bit. Previously, patients average length on a ventilator was roughly 21/22 days. If you were on that long, you were probably going to die.
So in case anyone is still reading the posts of one of the original "COVID-19 is a scam" folks, with his "only" 688 deaths yesterday schtick, here's the deal.
Reduction in deaths was directly attributable to shutdowns and social distancing.
With Memorial Day, the end of shutdowns, and the start of both church-going and protests all roughly three weeks ago, it figured to take three to four weeks for virus cases to dramatically increase. Here they are, exactly on schedule.
With the cases increasing, the death rates will start climbing in another three to four weeks after the usual lag time.
What mickey is quoting is exactly what should be happening, according to epidemiologists. What's silly about mickey's assertion is that, with cases currently exploding, people should celebrate the "low" death rate. That's great...for another three to four weeks. Then the death rate will start to climb again.
Now, a question. Before this entire COVID-19 thing got underway, would anyone have thought mickey would be claiming 700 deaths a day was a good thing? What exactly is mickey's metric on this? Would 1000 deaths a day be a sign the U.S. has this under control? What is mickey suggesting? That re-opening is "working" because the U.S. has "only" 700 deaths in a day?
More importantly, why would the U.S. opt for a shutdown a month SHORTER than Italy or Spain's shutdowns, which were harsher? What is it about the U.S. economy that is so fragile? What is it that makes U.S. citizenry uniquely unable to spend an extra four to six weeks in lockdown as opposed to, say, Italy or South Korea or New Zealand? Are Americans all snowflakes?
The projection now is for 180,000 dead by the end of September. I think that's low. I've been correct every single time. We'll see if I'm correct again. Fatality rates should go down some, with younger people infected and health care professionals having some experience under their belts. But the 180,000 is still low.
Also to consider, mickey's assertion that all that matters now is deaths. For those people who are taking months to recover, or who have permanent lung damage, it's a big deal. This is not a live-long-and-healthy-after-recovery or die disease.
Mickey has consistently been wrong and consistently given terrible advice. With any luck, no one is reading this thread any longer. I mean, what happens next? Mickey explains how 200,000 dead is winning because the death rate is low?
Mickey, you have really done people a disservice who are trying to figure out the virus. Why don't you tell everyone what "losing" would look like? What metric would be required for you to say that early re-opening was a bad idea? Take your time and lay it out. How many dead or infected would convince you that the U.S. does not really know what it's doing as compared to South Korea or New Zealand or Japan or Italy, which really butchered things at first? What numbers would lead you to say the U.S. has done a bad job? I think the UK and Brazil have done as poorly as the U.S., but that's about it. You have any other candidates?
Reply With Quote