Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 05, 2020

Johns Hopkins University on Tuesday said analysis included in leaked government documents that showed the U.S. could see up to 3,000 deaths per day from coronavirus was not meant to be used for official forecasts.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I wonder if the New York Times is going to have to issue a retraction?

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-05 02:30 PM | Reply

Didn't we just have 3,000 dead in one day?

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-05 02:30 PM | Reply

It's my understanding that NY changed its guidelines on April 14 and added over 3500 additional deaths (which occurred over the past 30 days) and Mass and NJ did the same thing on April 21 and 23, each adding over 1000, but otherwise no day has gone over 2700 and it is now falling.

Graphic: Coronavirus deaths in the U.S., per day

#3 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-05 02:47 PM | Reply

With the rise in deaths increasing daily there is no real reason to believe that those projections won't end up being pretty accurate.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2020-05-05 03:21 PM | Reply

I wonder if the New York Times is going to have to issue a retraction?

No retraction, just a correction. The document was presented as it existed. There wasn't any written explanation accompanying the copy indicating what JH is saying today.

3000 deaths per day by June is the high end of every projection vector that I've seen, it wasn't a number pulled out of thin air.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-05 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... 3000 deaths per day by June is the high end of every projection vector that I've seen ...

Indeed, even the summary above says the leaked document reads, "could see up to 3,000 deaths per day." [emphasis mine]

So, I have to wonder, just what is the retraction that needs to be issued?


#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-05 03:44 PM | Reply

"could see up to 3,000 deaths per day."

Yup. And we saw "up to 3,000 deaths a day".

Some Snowflakes just can't handle the truth.

Apparently.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-05-05 04:36 PM | Reply

#4

Once again, it doesn't look like you actually read the article or clicked the link that immediately preceded this post.

#8 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-05 04:44 PM | Reply

#6

"So, I have to wonder, just what is the retraction that needs to be issued?"

The NY Times article didn't say "up to 3,000 deaths a day" [your emphasis], it said:

"As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of cases and deaths from the coronavirus over the next several weeks, reaching about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double from the current level of about 1,750." [my emphasis]

They said there would be "about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1", which is why Johns Hopkins had to issue this statement, and the Times had to issue a "correction."

#9 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-05 04:53 PM | Reply

I won't be too surprised if we hit 250,000 dead or more in the US.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-05 04:53 PM | Reply

reaching about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double from the current level of about 1,750."

We have already reached 3000 deaths a day. And we can easily get there again.

It all depends on what our people do.

It's all been done before. We have documented evidence of exactly what happens if you don't do proper mitigation in a pandemic.

See 1918 for further details.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-05-05 05:01 PM | Reply

Today's death count is 2274 and counting.

The NYT has nothing to be worried about.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-05 05:17 PM | Reply

@#9 ... They said there would be "about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1" ...

Still, much ado about little.

"About" 3000 vs. "up to" 3000.

Yeah, that warrants a correction, or even an update.

But the retraction you wondered the NY Times would have to issue. I just don't see it.


#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-05 05:51 PM | Reply

#13

"About" in common usage means it's a pretty accurate number. "Up to" means a top limit. Big difference.

Even NPR is calling out the NYT for its rush to a panic inducing headline:

Fact Check: Trump Administration Document And Its 3,000 Deaths A Day Scenario:

"On Monday the New York Times published what appeared to be an explosive finding: an internal document from the Trump Administration that forecast many more coming deaths from the coronavirus than the president has predicted publicly.

Specifically, the document included projections that in the coming weeks the rate of daily new infections in the United States will rise so precipitously that by June 1 more than 200,000 people per day will be contracting the virus " and more than 3,000 people per day will be dying.

But there's an important caveat to this story. NPR contacted the epidemiologist who came up with the projections in the internal document, Justin Lessler of Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. Lessler says the projections cited in the document do not represent his final forecast. Rather they were part of work that's still very much in progress " in other words, incomplete.

"It's as if somebody looked over my shoulder when I was halfway through putting the work together and took a picture and put the results out there," he tells NPR. "The understanding is that [this] was always intended to be shown to people who were fully aware that this was work in progress, not a final result," says Lessler.

As to how and why the graphs were copied into the internal document, "I wasn't privy to the process," says Lessler. He says he also does not know whether the document " which is formatted like a series of slides for a presentation " was ever used to brief any officials in the Trump administration."

To see an incomplete version of his work disseminated and discussed so publicly was all the more unnerving since it's obvious from the graph that the simulations he's run thus far are not that robust " since they fail to predict the actual number of deaths to date. "Yes, this has been my day: having Nate Silver criticize my intermediate work on Twitter," he says, referring to the prominent blogger. "Which is," he adds with a chuckle, "you know, a great feeling."

#14 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-05 06:15 PM | Reply

@#14 ... "About" in common usage means it's a pretty accurate number. "Up to" means a top limit. Big difference. ...

Sometimes there is a big difference. Sometimes not.

For example, in the context of the current numbers, e.g, the 2700 you cited above, "about 3000" is about the same as "up to 3000."

Indeed, if the number happens to go above 3000, then the "about 3000" may even be more accurate than the "up to 3000."

As I said above...

Yeah, that warrants a correction, or even an update.

I still don't see the need for the retraction you wondered about.




#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-05 07:44 PM | Reply

More nitpicking, lots of death to go around. Don't be so impatient, wait your turn to die.

#16 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-05 10:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Looks like we'll hit 250k dead soon. The point is that we're just letting it happen by not doing testing, contact tracing, or wearing masks.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-05-06 05:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

BRUCE

If Trump weren't such a lying SOS, the country would have more confidence in his Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. When Trump says he has enough kits for Phase 1, it by no means he has enough reagents to perform the tests. Reagents are extremely complicated to manufacture, the global demand is high and production is limited to just a few firms ~~ who themselves are hampered by production capacity and sometimes export bans.

Trump's "Phases" sound like another one of Trump's half measures to buy time. I don't blame any governor for not trusting Trump's word that he'll have the kits and reagents ready when they're needed. With Trump's track record for lying, it's highly unlikely. And, of course, it will always be somebody else's fault.

#18 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-05-06 10:24 AM | Reply

182 days to November 3rd. It seems like only yesterday I saying a year and a half. Time is flying.

A lot of people are going to die between now and then and the economy is still going to be in the dumpster.

Be careful out there in Retortland. Don't let Trump turn you into one of his statistics.

#19 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-05-06 10:30 AM | Reply

Whether or not Johns Hopkins is willing to stand with their document, the fact is that we are well on the way to 3000 deaths per day and more! The best-case scenario of 100k-250k dead was IF we were good at mitigation. If you remove the states who have been good at mitigation (NY, NJ, CA, WA, etc) from the statistics, the daily numbers of new cases are skyrocketing! Now Dotard has thrown off all suggestion at mitigation in favor of an open economy which is going to lead to full hospital ICUs and thousands of deaths in the Trump gut-based red states and continued caution in the science-based blue states. Now he's talking about collapsing the task force. This is a complete abdication of leadership and will lead to many more than 250k dead!

#20 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-05-06 03:13 PM | Reply

This is a complete abdication of leadership and will lead to many more than 250k dead!
#20 | POSTED BY_GUNSLINGER_

That's what the Deplorables love about him.
He really knows how to troll the libs.
Border camps was just the beginning.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-06 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They said there would be "about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1", which is why Johns Hopkins had to issue this statement, and the Times had to issue a "correction."

#9 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER AT 2020-05-05 04:53 PM

2653 on May 6th.

2416 on May 5th.

If it continues at this rate, we'll see 3000 this weekend - even though there's 26 days until 6/1.

It's looking pretty likely that the NYT could have saved the ink.

And Hopkins is looking like another sycophantic Trump suck-up. They've obviously overestimated the effects of US mitigation. And the reopening binge has barely started.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-06 08:51 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort