[Snorlax94]

"There are 320 million people in the United States. If half of them get infected in the next 6 to 18 months, that's 160 million people. The 50% rate of infection over the course of the pandemic is at the low end of my colleagues' consensus on what we can expect to see given the infectiousness of this virus.  Based on what we know from Asia, from the European Union and from the United States, about 80% of these cases will have asymptomatic, mild or moderate illness but won't need professional medical care. About 20% of infected people will seek medical care. That's 32 million people.  Of those, about half will be hospitalized. That's 16 million people. Of those who are hospitalized, about half will actually require some form of critical care. That's 8 million people. About 0.5 to 1% of the total number of 160 million infected people will die. So you have the possibility of at least 800,000 deaths in the US over the next 18 months. This is the number of deaths I'm expecting."

Why is he wrong?

Why did he ramble on about how many people would end up in the ICU...and then use none of those numbers except what he originally started with to calculate 800K deaths?  Or is he trying to point out two facts.  ICU _and_ deaths?  OK, that would make more sense.

Still, the reason he's wrong...the 80% number doesn't include (in the denominator) all the asymptomatic cases that are popping up in these more extensive testing environments.   The 80% is based on the tested confirmed cases.  But in most places, the tested confirmed cases is no where near a proper sample of the population.  Many experts believe the actual number of cases is 10x-20x more.

If that's true, then you have 10x more cases, which reduces your medical help cases from 20% to 2%.  And if only 1/4 of your medical help cases go into the ICU, then that 2% reduces to 0.5%.  And if you started with 160M, you're now at 800K who will need critical care.

As for deaths...sure, 800k-1.6M is the projected outcome...if _no_ intervention.  No social distancing, no group avoidance, no shelter at home.  With all that changed social behavior, that 800K-1.6M drops.  How much it drops?  Who knows for sure, but it does appear that it will reduce by at least 10x.

The multiplier — 10x maybe even 50x — may hold for younger people, driving down hospitalizations and casualties to very, very low levels, but I fear, based on what we’ve seen on cruise ships, senior centers, and in the age-based cfrs from korea, that the multiplier will not hold for the elderly, and we will see an ifr of 5-10%+ with medical care, and even higher rates if things collapse.

[Snorlax94]

"There are 320 million people in the United States. If half of them get infected in the next 6 to 18 months, that's 160 million people. The 50% rate of infection over the course of the pandemic is at the low end of my colleagues' consensus on what we can expect to see given the infectiousness of this virus.  Based on what we know from Asia, from the European Union and from the United States, about 80% of these cases will have asymptomatic, mild or moderate illness but won't need professional medical care. About 20% of infected people will seek medical care. That's 32 million people.  Of those, about half will be hospitalized. That's 16 million people. Of those who are hospitalized, about half will actually require some form of critical care. That's 8 million people. About 0.5 to 1% of the total number of 160 million infected people will die. So you have the possibility of at least 800,000 deaths in the US over the next 18 months. This is the number of deaths I'm expecting."

Why is he wrong?

Why did he ramble on about how many people would end up in the ICU...and then use none of those numbers except what he originally started with to calculate 800K deaths?  Or is he trying to point out two facts.  ICU _and_ deaths?  OK, that would make more sense.

Still, the reason he's wrong...the 80% number doesn't include (in the denominator) all the asymptomatic cases that are popping up in these more extensive testing environments.   The 80% is based on the tested confirmed cases.  But in most places, the tested confirmed cases is no where near a proper sample of the population.  Many experts believe the actual number of cases is 10x-20x more.

If that's true, then you have 10x more cases, which reduces your medical help cases from 20% to 2%.  And if only 1/4 of your medical help cases go into the ICU, then that 2% reduces to 0.5%.  And if you started with 160M, you're now at 800K who will need critical care.

As for deaths...sure, 800k-1.6M is the projected outcome...if _no_ intervention.  No social distancing, no group avoidance, no shelter at home.  With all that changed social behavior, that 800K-1.6M drops.  How much it drops?  Who knows for sure, but it does appear that it will reduce by at least 10x.

The multiplier — 10x maybe even 50x — may hold for younger people, driving down hospitalizations and casualties to very, very low levels, but I fear, based on what we’ve seen on cruise ships, senior centers, and in the age-based cfrs from korea, that the multiplier will not hold for the elderly, and we will see an ifr of 5-10%+ with medical care, and even higher rates if things collapse.