![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/305\/2020\/04\/man-4957154_1280.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nJust over two weeks ago on April 2, we had a post at this blog entitled Get Ready for a \u201cHell of a Bad Two Weeks.\u201d<\/a> President Trump and his coronavirus task group had said two days earlier that Americans should brace themselves for 100,000 to 240,000 deaths even if everyone followed the shut-down rules.\u00a0 The next two or three weeks, those that have just passed, were going to be the \u201croughest,\u201d he said.\u00a0 The experts projected<\/a> that today when I am writing this, April 16, would be the peak of the epidemic, with the most deaths, after which we would see a gradual but still deadly decline.<\/p>\n Our practice here at the Cranach blog, as readers of our New Year\u2019s editions know, is to make predictions but then check them.\u00a0 So I put the date on my calendar and planned to blog about it one way or the other.\u00a0 Some of those dire predictions did<\/em> take place.\u00a0 Others, including the larger projections based on computer modeling, did not.<\/p>\n First, what proved true:\u00a0 It was<\/em>, as President Trump said it would be, if you would excuse the profanity, a \u201chell of a bad two weeks.\u201d\u00a0 At that briefing, the death toll in the U.S. from the epidemic was 3,500 Americans.\u00a0 As of today<\/a>, in only two and a half weeks, it is nearly ten times that number:\u00a0 33,405.<\/p>\n At that briefing two and a half weeks ago, it was predicted that on April 16, the rate of deaths per day would be 2,607.\u00a0 That was not too far wrong.\u00a0\u00a0As reported by Reuters<\/a>, on Wednesday, April 15, a record 2,371 died.<\/p>\n UPDATE:\u00a0 The numbers for April 16 have come in and they were a surprising and shocking 4,591<\/em><\/a>!\u00a0 That\u2019s almost double the number from the day before.\u00a0 The modeling correctly picked April 16 as the peak day (unless the numbers keep going up), but this time it\u00a0underestimated<\/em> the number of deaths.<\/p>\n Overall, though, the computer modeling for the total number of deaths emphasized at that briefing was wrong.\u00a0 Of course, we won\u2019t know the total number of deaths until the epidemic is over, but the modelers themselves have been revising their predictions ever downwards.<\/p>\n When the epidemic first came into our national awareness, experts were predicting that if nothing was done, the number of Americans who would die, according to this story from March 17<\/a>, would reach 2.2 million<\/em>.\u00a0 If the country took strong action, we might get lucky and only one million would die<\/em>.<\/p>\n This got our attention.\u00a0 The shut-down orders went into effect.<\/p>\n By the end of March, social distancing and sheltering in place had become the norm. The predictions reported at the briefing were much-improved, but still frighteningly high:\u00a0 100,000-240,000.\u00a0 These numbers assumed that Americans would be following the new protocols.<\/p>\n But even then, as I reported in my post, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) was predicting a somewhat lower number: 93,765\u00a0 deaths.\u00a0 This would be the total by August 1, after which time, the epidemic, according to the model, would be over.<\/p>\n Here is<\/a> the very useful IHME site, which graphs a great deal of data, enabling users to see the extent to which we have \u201cflattened the curve.\u201d\u00a0 Today the total deaths are estimated to be, by the 4th of August, 68,841.<\/p>\n UPDATE:\u00a0 The IHME has revised the estimate downward again<\/a>, to 60,308.<\/p>\n That would be slightly more than twice as many as have died so far, at the \u201cpeak\u201d of the epidemic.\u00a0 If that means we are half-way through it, then the numbers of the falling curve might be expected to equal that of the rising curve, so that might be reasonable, but we don\u2019t really know how sharp the drop-off in infections might be.<\/p>\n So the models and expert predictions have been off dramatically.\u00a0 That the number of deaths is lower than predicted, defenders of the models say, is evidence that the draconian shut-down of American society has been working.\u00a0 But those models took that shut-down into account.\u00a0 At the very least, the models failed to calculate correctly what the effect of that shut-down would be.<\/p>\n The problem is in the nature of computer modeling, which only extrapolates current data into the future.\u00a0 But there are so many unknown variables that our knowledge is never going to be complete.\u00a0 This is certainly true of our knowledge about the COVID-19 epidemic, as the scientists researching it would be the first to tell you.<\/p>\n The data itself is uncertain.\u00a0 We don\u2019t really know how many people have been infected with the virus, due to the difficulties in getting people tested and to the fact that many of the infected have no (or hardly noticeable) symptoms.\u00a0 Nor do we really know how many people have died<\/a> from it, since states are using different criteria for reporting COVID-19 deaths, the effects of the virus may be long-lasting and are not always distinguishable from other causes.\u00a0 Thus, the researchers are always revising their models as they get more data.\u00a0 We have to use these tools, but their conclusions are not as certain as the graphs and the statistics make them seem.<\/p>\n Here is another prediction that proved wrong:\u00a0 Back on March 16,<\/a> I wrote in a post that the isolation of our small rural community in Oklahoma \u201cnaturally creates a state of protective quarantine.\u201d\u00a0 Was I ever wrong!\u00a0 For several weeks, our county ranked 4th in the state in the number of confirmed coronavirus, just behind the three biggest cities.<\/p>\n One bit of good news:\u00a0 The latest IMHE model<\/a> projects that the daily death count will decline to zero<\/em> on June 27. [UPDATE:\u00a0 Now June 17.<\/a>]<\/p>\n Then again, that model may be wrong.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Image by\u00a0Gerd Altmann<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0Pixabay<\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p><\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On March 31, the president and his coronavirus task force warned us to brace ourselves for a “hell of a bad two weeks.” Computer models projected a soaring death rate, peaking on April 16. Some of the predictions at that briefing proved true, while others did not.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1281,"featured_media":48746,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,40],"tags":[3388,9380,9514,1778],"class_list":["post-48601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-medicine","category-science","tag-computer-modelling","tag-coronavirus-epidemic","tag-covid-19-projections","tag-predictions"],"yoast_head":"\n