You aren't paying attention. It was way more than that at 1.7 million, not 1, and that was a model based on NO 'gubmint' intervention, as some idiots here at FR seem to advocate. Do you think "worst case model'" distinction might be important? What part of "worst case model" didn't you understand?
Those were AI models based on past epidemics, very complex data mining, and considering the unique characteristics of the Kung Flu, they were believable.
Fortunately our president and his team are mitigating those unmitigated numbers, in a bigly way.
Well I heard that explanation as an after the fact from the left. First it was we are all going to die, but now they credit government action for it not being 1.7 million. Seems like a convenient way to explain those hair on fire numbers they first spouted. But since you obviously not the left, perhaps there is some validity to that argument.
I guess I could be one of those idiots as I am crying in my beer at all the loss of liberty and economic vitality done in the name of beating what appears to be a nothing burger virus. I think the cure is for sure worse than the disease. Poverty is also a deadly virus, as we heard of at least one person committing suicide due to job losses.
I am sure there is going to be a lot of embarrassed people when this is all over and at most 500,000 die worldwide. Like SARS, Ebola, mad cow, Swine flu, a complete nothing burger to the west. But I am also sure they will nauseatingly claim it would have been worse if we didn’t act.