How many people will die in the USA from the new coronavirus by December 31, 2021??

[Tiny]

Participate in the poll or better yet give us a number. My number is 260,000. That's from assuming a 20% infection rate and 0.4% mortality rate of people infected:

327,000,000 people x 0.2 infection rate x .004 mortality rate = 260,000 deaths

You've got experts in epidemiology and public health predicting everything between 10,000 and 1.5 million deaths, so none of us nimrods is going to blow a hole in whatever estimate you throw out.

[Tiny]

Looks like there's a problem with the web site today, so I wasn't able to make this thread a poll. But if you'd like to post an estimate please do so. I'll be damn sure to revive the thread on January 1, 2022 if my number was the closest, and may do so anyway.

[HedonistForever]

A little to ghoulish for my taste.


But if people are still dying by Dec 2020 much less 2021, were done as a functioning economy and maybe even the human race if 2021 but I have all the faith in the world that we will have a medical treatment comparable to influenza before winter of 2020.

[Jacuzzme]

Less than the democrats are hoping for.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

A little to ghoulish for my taste.

Yes, especially considering one or more of us may be gone by then because of this. It's an important question though. A related question, that's more important and more ghoulish, how many people are you going to save with a severe lockdown and what's the incremental cost to do it? Say you save 150,000 lives, and the permanent cost to the economy to do that is $1.5 trillion. You've lost $10 million per person, which perhaps wasn't worth it considering the average age of the person you saved. Given the uncertainties in how many people will die, how many lives you could save given different scenarios, and how much they would cost, this might be a fools game.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, especially considering one or more of us may be gone by then because of this. It's an important question though. A related question, that's more important and more ghoulish, how many people are you going to save with a severe lockdown and what's the incremental cost to do it? Say you save 150,000 lives, and the permanent cost to the economy to do that is $1.5 trillion. You've lost $10 million per person, which perhaps wasn't worth it considering the average age of the person you saved. Given the uncertainties in how many people will die, how many lives you could save given different scenarios, and how much they would cost, this might be a fools game.

And in my opinion, there seem to be more people saying they don't care what the economic cost is, only the cost of lives is what matters. We'll see if that changes should shades of 1929 comes upon us.


I was locked out of editing my first post. This is what I tried to add but couldn't get back in till now.


But if people are still dying by Dec 2020 much less 2021, were done as a functioning economy and maybe even the human race if 2021 but I have all the faith in the world that we will have a medical treatment comparable to influenza before winter of 2020.

[friendly fred]

I'm going to say that 50,000 die, more or less the equivalent of 5 to 10 metropolises the size of NYC, times it's death rate, plus an equal number of cases spread out throughout the rest of the country.

I also estimate that if Trump hadn't shut off travel from China early, that number would be much worse.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, especially considering one or more of us may be gone by then because of this. It's an important question though. A related question, that's more important and more ghoulish, how many people are you going to save with a severe lockdown and what's the incremental cost to do it? Say you save 150,000 lives, and the permanent cost to the economy to do that is $1.5 trillion. You've lost $10 million per person, which perhaps wasn't worth it considering the average age of the person you saved. Given the uncertainties in how many people will die, how many lives you could save given different scenarios, and how much they would cost, this might be a fools game.

With that being said. you might want to ask, what's the real agenda?

[adav8s28]

Assuming social distancing is not practiced for the rest of the year.

327,000,000 people x 0.4 infection rate x .012 mortality rate = 1,569,600 deaths

[HoeHummer]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Less than the democrats are hoping for.

Dumbass

[oeb11]

it is my hope and prayer that all the DPST's practice stringent social distancing for the forseeable future.

The restraint will decrease their population additions - and strengthen the gene pool of humanity!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

With that being said. you might want to ask, what's the real agenda?

To be clear, by fools game I meant that it may be impossible to come up with a good estimate of what dollar value we're putting on a life for any given policy or plan of action. Clearly, in New York City where the health system is severely stressed, you need to take strong measures to stop or slow the spread. In the place where I live, with tracing and with good testing (if it were available), maybe we could live close to normal lives. One thing that I don't think's debatable, we should have been and should be pumping lots of dollars and effort into things like testing, tracing, and masks for the general population in places where this isn't out of control. The investment would be a drop in the bucket compared to benefits, both for the economy and peoples' lives.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

I'm going to say that 50,000 die, more or less the equivalent of 5 to 10 metropolises the size of NYC, times it's death rate, plus an equal number of cases spread out throughout the rest of the country.

I also estimate that if Trump hadn't shut off travel from China early, that number would be much worse.

I hope and pray you're close to right Fred. If you believe China's numbers, and something similar happens here, maybe we'll be at that level or lower here.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Assuming social distancing is not practiced for the rest of the year.

327,000,000 people x 0.4 infection rate x .012 mortality rate = 1,569,600 deaths

Hopefully the mortality rate will be lower, although there are experts who know more than any of us who would believe 1.2% is reasonable. What gives me some hope is the Diamond Princess cruise liner. Oeb has posted a good bit about this. They tested everyone on board, and the mortality rate so far (more passengers may die) is around your number, 1.1% or 1.2%. However, the passengers were older than average. Presumably if the age distribution on the ship were closer to what we've got overall in the USA, the mortality rate would be lower.

[gnadfly]

I'm not going to guess but ask a similar question: How many people in Brazil are going to die from CV? We won't know. We won't know how many people acquired it either. And they had Carnival. And they have some medical infrastructure. Parts are extremely densely populated.

But I'll guess they won't shut down businesses across Brazil for weeks. The death from starvation and brutality will pale in comparison to the CV deaths.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Tiny

To be clear, by fools game I meant that it may be impossible to come up with a good estimate of what dollar value we're putting on a life for any given policy or plan of action. Clearly, in New York City where the health system is severely stressed, you need to take strong measures to stop or slow the spread. In the place where I live, with tracing and with good testing (if it were available), maybe we could live close to normal lives. One thing that I don't think's debatable, we should have been and should be pumping lots of dollars and effort into things like testing, tracing, and masks for the general population in places where this isn't out of control. The investment would be a drop in the bucket compared to benefits, both for the economy and peoples' lives.

Right. Mexia will be OK without shutting down.