Somewhere Joe Stalin is smiling.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the IHME forecast for the course of the coronavirus pandemic was among the most optimistic. It was frequently referred to by Trump and its findings took center stage on the CDC COVID-19 forecast web page. Until recently, IHME forecast a first wave (thru end of July) death toll of about 72,000. Now its authors have changed it radically and that 72,000 deaths through July became 135,000.

Why the big change? Because their first model assumed a level of lockdown and social distancing which we now know we are not achieving and it will only get worse as Republicans try to rush a return to “normalcy” in time for the election.

Why is Joe Stalin smiling? As soon as the model changed, it was removed from the CDC forecast web site. Here is the CDC forecast web page on April 24. (CU is Columbia University)

And here is the most recent . . .

See the difference? I wonder who issued the order to remove the current IHME forecast. It was either Trump himself or someone afraid of losing their position if they didn’t. Our government has been poisoned.

10 thoughts on “Somewhere Joe Stalin is smiling.

  1. Or could it be that the IHME model was dropped because it had proven to be inaccurate?

    If all the people pushing reopening (which I agree is being rushed) are Republicans, you’re going to have a very rough time in November.


    1. @Tabor

      I figured your reaction would be some silly spin. Who – and on what basis – would find the latest IHME forecast to be suddenly found “inaccurate?” When did these highly touted – by Trump and Fauci – epidemiologists suddenly become incompetent?

      These are rhetorical questions. It is OBVIOUS that IHME was dropped because their forecast highlights the cost (at least 60,000+ extra deaths by the end of July) of prematurely returning to the “normalcy” that Trump sees vital to his staying in office.

      I grant you that some Democrats are also pushing for a quicker return to normalcy but the push that matters is coming from Trump and mostly GOP governors. But go ahead, deny that fact too.

      By the way, whether to follow the science or not IS becoming a partisan issue and by election day, it will be painfully obvious who was right and who was wrong. Trying to hide the IHME and other death predictions will only add to the number of deaths.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Or could it be that the IHME model was dropped because it had proven to be inaccurate?”

      Or, even simpler, had IHME’s data been plotted on the same graph it would have looked like an exaggerated outlier, raising unnecessary questions about the other forecasts the illustration shows.


      1. @Roberts

        Spin. Spin. Spin.

        Nice try, but lame. The graph already has data reaching well above the 135,000 figure.

        And why would those be “unnecessary questions?” Especially after the IHME had been touted for their expertise and objectivity up until this change?

        Also note the new graph to the right with a new “ensemble” line that was not presented before. Looks better than some of the individual lines and much better than it would look if the IHME forecast had not been dropped. Another obvious attempt to make things look better. And that while an internal working forecast reaching up to 3,000 deaths per day are in the hands of the President. When will it be the right time for Trump to start telling the truth?

        You Trump apologists frequently tout your analytical skills and rational, scientific objectivity but here are two of you are trying to spin away good non-partisan science. Let me ask you, is that not kind of hypocritical?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “Let me ask you, is that not kind of hypocritical?”

          It might be if I had a history of tooting my own horn, but yet again you are projecting your own imaginary view of reality and erecting a straw man.

          My comment makes the point that plotting the new IHME data on the existing graphic would introduce an anomaly that would then require explanation. It would be like mixing apples and oranges, since part of the IHME forecast was produced using one model, and part was produced using a different model.

          The “science” in this instance is better served by removing IHME’s data set altogether.


          1. @Roberts

            I kinda, sorta expected a nonsense reply. I was not disappointed.

            Apples and oranges? An anomaly?
            The graph already contains forecasts with different assumptions about social distancing. And what part of the graph scale ALREADY goes well above the number in this new IHME forecast did you not see?

            Science is not better served in the least by omitting this respected information. Trump’s political goals clearly are. But have fun. Keep spinning.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. No. He’s as rotted as is possible for a formaldehyde soaked pickle. But, we don’t need him to smile. His White House disciples are doing it for him — the President is the ultimate authority!

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s