The Washington Post, in an article by Philip Bump, rips President Trump for having underestimated the number of Americans who will die from the Wuhan coronavirus. Earlier this month, Trump said, “I think we’ll be substantially, hopefully, below the [100,000] number, and I think, right now, we’re heading at probably around 60-, maybe 65,000.”
In making this statement, Trump was doing what the Post and other critics constantly accuse him of not doing. He was relying on experts. Trump relied on the IHME model, which had lowered its estimate of U.S. deaths to a little more than 60,000 through the end of July.
I never believed the number would be that low. With U.S. deaths mounting quickly throughout the month of April, I said we might reach 60,000 by the end of the month, and that May would also be quite deadly, given the number of new cases in March and April.
However, I don’t see why Trump should be criticized for relying on a model that most analysts and policymakers appear to consider the best one available. Did the Post criticize the IHME model until very recently? Maybe. I’ve stopped comprehensively reading its horribly skewed coverage of this pandemic.
But in the articles I’ve held my nose and read, I haven’t seen a critique of this model or its forecasts. Absent one, Philip Bump’s condescending article is as unfair as it is offensive.
It’s also worth noting that Trump never wedded himself to the 60,000-65,000 figure. He said that “hopefully” the number will be substantially below 100,000 and suggested that it could be 75,000.
The Post appears to want to defend the IHME model, even as it attacks Trump for relying on it. It notes that the model only projected U.S. deaths through July, and thus did not estimate how many would die in the event of a second wave of the virus.
I never understood Trump to be projecting out any further in time than the model he relied on did. No one has any idea how many people will die in future waves. It’s not even certain that there will be a second wave, though this seems highly likely.
The Washington Post persists with its cheap shots at President Trump even as its editors complain about “a resurgence of the partisanship and vitriol” in discussions about this pandemic. If the Post really wanted less partisanship and vitriol in these discussions, it might lower its daily quota of coronavirus-related attacks on Trump from, say, ten to five.
UPDATE: At Hot Air, John Sexton points out that Bump cited with approval a revised (and lowered) IHME projection of deaths from the virus in Alabama. Bump said nothing about deaths in a second wave. Sexton writes:
You could say that when the IHME revised its death toll downward, Philip Bump embraced it and expressed hope the trend would continue. But a week later he’s trying to dunk on Trump for doing exactly the same thing. Why would he do that?
To fill the Post’s informal quota of anti-Trump coronavirus stories, that’s why.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.