Here’s the Punch-in-the-Gut Version of the Imperial College Coronavirus Study

It strikes me that it might be useful to summarize the Imperial College team’s estimate of likely coronavirus deaths. They provide mortality estimates for two scenarios: doing nothing and doing quite a large amount. What we’re doing right now is somewhere between those two, so I’ve filled it in with an interpolation. The team also provides a range of estimates for massive efforts that are strictly enforced for over a year. Here’s roughly how it pencils out:

The kinds of things the IC team recommends are nowhere near being implemented yet, and to have a serious effect they need to put in place soon. Given where we are now, this means that the only realistic options are #2 and #3. In other words, it’s likely that the US will see 1.1-1.5 million deaths from the coronavirus, with more than half of them coming by June.

Now, this is just one estimate. The Imperial College team used an existing microsimulation model that was created about ten years ago and then plugged in lots of guesses and estimates: what measures would be taken; how many families would comply; average class sizes; commuting distances; incubation periods; etc. Some of these are things we have a pretty good handle on, while others are a lot trickier to estimate. Some of them produce only small changes if you get them wrong, while others are pretty sensitive. So in that sense, take this with a grain of salt.

That said, this appears to be the most sophisticated estimate we have at the moment. It might be wrong, but at this point it would be foolish to simply assume so.

GREAT JOURNALISM, SLOW FUNDRAISING

Our team has been on fire lately—publishing sweeping, one-of-a-kind investigations, ambitious, groundbreaking projects, and even releasing “the holy shit documentary of the year.” And that’s on top of protecting free and fair elections and standing up to bullies and BS when others in the media don’t.

Yet, we just came up pretty short on our first big fundraising campaign since Mother Jones and the Center for Investigative Reporting joined forces.

So, two things:

1) If you value the journalism we do but haven’t pitched in over the last few months, please consider doing so now—we urgently need a lot of help to make up for lost ground.

2) If you’re not ready to donate but you’re interested enough in our work to be reading this, please consider signing up for our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter to get to know us and our reporting better. Maybe once you do, you’ll see it’s something worth supporting.

payment methods

GREAT JOURNALISM, SLOW FUNDRAISING

Our team has been on fire lately—publishing sweeping, one-of-a-kind investigations, ambitious, groundbreaking projects, and even releasing “the holy shit documentary of the year.” And that’s on top of protecting free and fair elections and standing up to bullies and BS when others in the media don’t.

Yet, we just came up pretty short on our first big fundraising campaign since Mother Jones and the Center for Investigative Reporting joined forces.

So, two things:

1) If you value the journalism we do but haven’t pitched in over the last few months, please consider doing so now—we urgently need a lot of help to make up for lost ground.

2) If you’re not ready to donate but you’re interested enough in our work to be reading this, please consider signing up for our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter to get to know us and our reporting better. Maybe once you do, you’ll see it’s something worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate