Miscalculation at every level left U.S. unequipped to fight coronavirus

Re:Miscalculation at every level left U.S. unequipped to fig... by nodamage on Thursday April 30, 2020 @02:34AM (#23028036)

> If the authors had given a table for the US, we could see what their model predicted, but they did not, and _you_ assuming that the US is a linear relation to GB may or may not be accurate.

The Imperial College team actually did model country-by-country numbers in a follow up report on March 24th:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana...

The United States estimates for several different scenarios are:

Unmitigated: 2,654,410 deaths

Mitigation strategy (social distancing whole population): 1,358,164 deaths

Mitigation strategy (enhanced social distancing of elderly): 1,090,267 deaths

Suppression strategy (triggered at 1.6 deaths per 100,000): 474,227 deaths

Suppression strategy (triggered at 0.2 deaths per 100,000): 84,124 deaths

The differences between mitigation and suppression are explained in the paper.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Miscalculation at every level left U.S. unequipped to fig... by jakeogh on Thursday April 30, 2020 @03:58AM (#23028546)

Thank you. Any estimate on when we crossed the supression strategy death/100k threshold?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Miscalculation at every level left U.S. unequipped to fig... by rrss on Thursday April 30, 2020 @11:21AM (#23031817)

The triggers considered were 0.2 deaths / 100k population / week and 1.6 deaths / 100k population / week. For the U.S. that corresponds to ~700 deaths / week and ~5,200 deaths / week.

The United States as a whole hit the first trigger (according to reported deaths from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/blob/master/us.csv) sometime around 3/19, and second trigger sometime around 3/27.

[ Parent | on HN ]