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?
This was posted here a while back: <a href="https://neherlab.org/covid19/" rel="nofollow">https://neherlab.org/covid19/</a><p>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.
This is so sad.<p>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.<p>I’m almost certain that his estimates are too low unless we can get ahead of it.
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.<p>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?<p>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%.<p>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.
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.