Consider the source
A recent letter about estimates of the death toll from the coronavirus fails to understand the nature of these studies and faults them as being inaccurate (“Predictions fair poorly,” Letter to the Editor, Sequim Gazette, May 20, page A-14).
In the study from Imperial College which warned of possibly 2 million deaths in the U.S., that study assumed that no measures would be implemented to prevent the spread of the virus. Governors across this country, in both red states and blue states, took heed of this warning and took action.
While those steps have stressed our economy and labor force greatly, there is no way of knowing how accurate the 2 million death estimate was.
As some parts of the country rush to reopen even before meeting the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we may sadly learn how dangerous this virus is.
Other models alluded to were based on assumptions about the effects of social distancing, wearing face masks and how willingly the guidelines would be accepted by the population at large. Feedback from observing the developments led to revisions in the predictions.
This should in no way be considered a failure of the models.
Perhaps the writer of the previous letter would like to comment on the accuracy of the predictions from the White House, paraphrased here: February — only 15 cases, in a few days it will be down to zero; March – It will all be over by Easter; April, from Dr. Birx — by the middle of May, the cases and deaths will drop to near zero.