"Coronavirus model once used by White House now predicts" Topic

… 200,000 U.S. deaths by October

"A coronavirus model once used by the White House now projects more than 200,000 Americans could die of COVID-19 by October 1. The prediction went up by more than 30,000 since last week.

As of Tuesday, more than 116,000 people in the U.S. have died of the coronavirus, and the death toll is still growing by hundreds per day. Infection rates and hospitalizations are rising in numerous states as businesses open up and people drop precautions.

According to the latest model from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, a research institute once utilized by the White House for coronavirus projections, another 85,000 or so deaths are now projected by October 1…."
Main page
link

Also….

link

Amicalement
Armand

Easy to achieve since around 7,500 individuals die every day in this country so easy to just claim that they died of COVID instead of; heart attack, cancer, renal failure etc…

So over the next 30 days that is around 225,000 dead to choose from.

60 days that is around 450,000 to choose from.

90 days that is around 675,000 to choose from.

So easy to make claims when no one is going to question the numbers.

The White House has since repudiated this model. The modeling was found to contain numerous errors.

Remember what Martin said about all models!

To set record straight the NY Doctor Zelenko is the one who came up with the HQC, Z pac and zinc mix to use as a cure for Covid-19.

"The researchers estimated that an annual 251,454 U.S. deaths — or 9.5% of all annual U.S. deaths — resulted from medical error, making it the third leading cause of death in the country."

Who would have thought that a quarter million people die from medical malpractice in this county in a year.

link

Not exactly true.

Mark was referring to the use of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool, which is arguably way too sensitive. Also, as I explained in my deconstruction of the Johns Hopkins paper, the authors conflated unavoidable complications with medical errors, didn't consider very well whether the deaths were potentially preventable, and extrapolated from small numbers. Many of these studies also used administrative databases, which are primarily designed for insurance billing and thus not very good for other purposes.

So, if the estimates between 200,000 and 400,000 are way too high, what is the real number of deaths that can be attributed to medical error? How would we go about estimating it? As part of that Twitter exchange, Mark pointed me to a recent publication that suggests how. Not surprisingly, its estimates are many-fold lower than the Hopkins study. Also not surprisingly, it got basically no press coverage. The study was published two weeks ago in JAMA Network Open; it's by Sunshine et al. out of the University of Washington and is entitled "Association of Adverse Effects of Medical Treatment With Mortality in the United States: A Secondary Analysis of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study".

From a better study: link

The absolute number of deaths in which AEMT[Adverse effects of medical treatment] was the underlying cause increased from 4180 (95% UI, 3087-4993) in 1990 to 5180 (95% UI, 4469-7436) in 2016. Most of this increase was due to population growth and aging, as demonstrated by a 21.4% decrease (95% UI, 1.3%-32.2%) in the national age-standardized AEMT mortality rate over the same period, from 1.46 (95% UI, 1.09-1.76) deaths per 100 000 population in 1990 to 1.15 (95% UI, 1.00-1.60) deaths per 100 000 population in 2016 (Figure 1A). When not exclusively measured as the underlying cause of death, AEMT appeared in the cause-of-death chain in 2.7% of all deaths from 1980 to 2014, which corresponds to AEMT being a contributing cause for an additional 20 deaths for each death when it is the underlying cause. Mortality associated with AEMT as either an underlying or contributing cause appeared in 2.8% of all deaths.

Let's unpack this a minute. We're looking at a number of deaths due to AEMT that's 50- to nearly 80-fold smaller than the numbers in the Hopkins study. More than that, the number normalized to population is falling, having fallen 21% over 36 years.

So what's the difference between this study and studies like the Hopkins study and the studies upon which the Hopkins study was based? First, it uses a database designed to estimate the prevalence of different causes of death, rather than for insurance billing. Second, it used rigorous methodology to identify deaths that were primarily due to AEMTs. One thing about this study that makes sense comes from its observation that AEMT is a contributing cause for 20 additional deaths for each death for which it is the underlying cause. For 5,180 deaths in the most recent year, that means 108,780 deaths had an AEMT as a contributing or primary cause that year, which is in line with the IOM estimates. It's also in line with my assertions that one major issue with previous studies is that the unspoken underlying assumption behind them is that that if a patient had an AEMT during his hospital course it was the AEMT that killed him. As for the studies finding up to 400,000 deaths a year due to medical errors, they are, as Monty Python would say, right out.

USAFpilot's number was 251,000, the following quote stated 400,000. Where did these numbers come from?

What makes the final study "better"?

First, it uses a database designed to estimate the prevalence of different causes of death, rather than for insurance billing.

So, while reading this again, I note their primary reason for claiming their results are more accurate than John Hopkins' study is because their results are estimated rather than the actual documented numbers used by John Hopkins.