COVID-19 Megathread 5: The Trumps catch COVID-19

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280853299600789505

On average, Germany has about 400 new infections per day right now.

United States has 51,000 per day.

Do the math, Donnie.

[Landslide Lyndon]

CANCEL CULTURE RUN WILD!!!

https://twitter.com/jdavidgoodman/status/1280956169679507460

[Middle-aged Europe]

CANCEL CULTURE RUN WILD!!!

https://twitter.com/jdavidgoodman/status/1280956169679507460

LIBERATE HOUSTON!

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/GBolognaCL/status/1280950259234021376

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280853299600789505
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280857657365200902

Huh, I thought Congress had the "Power of the Purse". Thanks for clearing that up El Presidente!

[Florida Man for Crime]

Last Wednesday (July 1) there were 676 reported deaths. So far today, we are sitting at 692 deaths, with much of California, almost all of Texas, and the entirety of 8 other states still not having yet reported. This means that the 7-day moving average of deaths will be increasing again. If this up-trend in deaths holds over the coming days/weeks, then we will have started our 2nd death wave with EXACTLY the same # of days lagging behind our 2nd case wave as Iran, literally down to the day. It is remarkable that deaths appear to be up-trending with exactly the expected time lag.

We are also at 45,574 cases so far today, compared to 52,358 last Wednesday, so it is quite clear that cases will also continue to trend up. We have a shot at breaking 60k cases for the first time if California and Texas both manage to post big numbers today. If we don't quite manage it today, we probably will tomorrow.

[Calthrina950]

Last Wednesday (July 1) there were 676 reported deaths. So far today, we are sitting at 692 deaths, with much of California, almost all of Texas, and the entirety of 8 other states still not having yet reported. This means that the 7-day moving average of deaths will be increasing again. If this up-trend in deaths holds over the coming days/weeks, then we will have started our 2nd death wave with EXACTLY the same # of days lagging behind our 2nd case wave as Iran, literally down to the day. It is remarkable that deaths appear to be up-trending with exactly the expected time lag.

We are also at 45,574 cases so far today, compared to 52,358 last Wednesday, so it is quite clear that cases will also continue to trend up. We have a shot at breaking 60k cases for the first time if California and Texas both manage to post big numbers today. If we don't quite manage it today, we probably will tomorrow.

Do you think there is any difference with how California and Texas have handled the coronavirus pandemic? Has one state been more competent than the other? Or have they both bungled their approaches? Which Governors do you think have done the best in addressing this crisis? I'm asking this because the vast majority of states (36, at last count), are experiencing a rise in cases. This includes Colorado, where coronavirus hospitalizations and cases have increased over the past two weeks.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The city of Tulsa is experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases, a little over 2 weeks after President Donald Trump held a campaign rally in an indoor arena there.

Dr. Bruce Dart, Executive Director of the Tulsa Health Department, said in a press conference on Wednesday there are high numbers being reported this week, with nearly 500 new cases in two days and trends are showing that those numbers will increase.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/us/tulsa-covid-trump-rally-contact-tracers-trnd/index.html

[jimrtex]

The sheriffs that say they won't enforce the mask requirement order, are doing a crime?

They are using their limited resources on more important priorities.

Deputy: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Citizen: (thinks driving while black, places both hands on wheel): No, sir.
Deputy: Your tail-light is burnt out.
Citizen: (thinks that the officer might just issue a warning): Thank you sir.
Deputy: May I see your ID.
Citizen: My ID is in my wallet in my pocket, sir.
(Citizen hands ID to deputy, who takes it back to his patrol car, a second patrol car pulls up and the second deputy walks up to the passenger side)
Deputy 2: May I see your ID?
Citizen 2 (female): I wasn't driving.
Deputy 2: But you were riding in the car.
Citizen 2: (sighs, thinks riding while black, hands officer her ID)
(Deputy 2 takes it back to compare it with that of Citizen 1)
Deputy 2: (returning) You don't live together?
Citizen 2: We had to postpone the wedding because of the Chinese flu.
Deputy 2: (notes possible hate speech): You don't live together?
Citizen 2: (shocked by question): That would be a sin!
Deputy 2: (indicating young boy in back seat): How old are you son?
Young Citizen: 11 years old.
Citizen 2: He's my little brother.

Deputies confer, and decide to charge citizens with riding in a private car not members of household not wearing a mask, a burnt-out tail light, a hate crime, and reckless endangerment of a minor. Deputies return.

Deputies (in unison): OK, everyone out of the car, hands on the roof of the car. You are all under arrest:
Citizen 2 (screaming): You're going to put my little brother in jail!!!

Deputies exchange glances,
Deputy 1: 11-475 (code section for resisting arrest).
Deputy 2: Roger, that.

Deputy 2: No ma'am we're not going to put your brother in jail. A social worker from CPS will be here in a half-hour or so to take him to a safe place.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It’s worth noting that New Jersey reported 71 deaths today.  They have ten times the overall death rate of Florida, California, or Texas.  And they are still averaging way more deaths per capita than any of those states even just in the past week.    How anyone can use their performance as a model to emulate is beyond me.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Last Wednesday (July 1) there were 676 reported deaths. So far today, we are sitting at 692 deaths, with much of California, almost all of Texas, and the entirety of 8 other states still not having yet reported. This means that the 7-day moving average of deaths will be increasing again. If this up-trend in deaths holds over the coming days/weeks, then we will have started our 2nd death wave with EXACTLY the same # of days lagging behind our 2nd case wave as Iran, literally down to the day. It is remarkable that deaths appear to be up-trending with exactly the expected time lag.

We are also at 45,574 cases so far today, compared to 52,358 last Wednesday, so it is quite clear that cases will also continue to trend up. We have a shot at breaking 60k cases for the first time if California and Texas both manage to post big numbers today. If we don't quite manage it today, we probably will tomorrow.

Do you think there is any difference with how California and Texas have handled the coronavirus pandemic? Has one state been more competent than the other? Or have they both bungled their approaches? Which Governors do you think have done the best in addressing this crisis? I'm asking this because the vast majority of states (36, at last count), are experiencing a rise in cases. This includes Colorado, where coronavirus hospitalizations and cases have increased over the past two weeks.

Basically no governor has done a good job addressing the crisis.  Some have let it spread faster than other, and some were just in better position to hold it off longer.   But no one has done what really needed to be done to truly limit the death toll and efficiently get our society back to normal.  This would have been a hard lockdown accompanied by a program of voluntary deliberate infection and quarantine in order to safely establish immunity without infecting vulnerable people.

[Calthrina950]

Last Wednesday (July 1) there were 676 reported deaths. So far today, we are sitting at 692 deaths, with much of California, almost all of Texas, and the entirety of 8 other states still not having yet reported. This means that the 7-day moving average of deaths will be increasing again. If this up-trend in deaths holds over the coming days/weeks, then we will have started our 2nd death wave with EXACTLY the same # of days lagging behind our 2nd case wave as Iran, literally down to the day. It is remarkable that deaths appear to be up-trending with exactly the expected time lag.

We are also at 45,574 cases so far today, compared to 52,358 last Wednesday, so it is quite clear that cases will also continue to trend up. We have a shot at breaking 60k cases for the first time if California and Texas both manage to post big numbers today. If we don't quite manage it today, we probably will tomorrow.

Do you think there is any difference with how California and Texas have handled the coronavirus pandemic? Has one state been more competent than the other? Or have they both bungled their approaches? Which Governors do you think have done the best in addressing this crisis? I'm asking this because the vast majority of states (36, at last count), are experiencing a rise in cases. This includes Colorado, where coronavirus hospitalizations and cases have increased over the past two weeks.

Basically no governor has done a good job addressing the crisis.  Some have let it spread faster than other, and some were just in better position to hold it off longer.   But no one has done what really needed to be done to truly limit the death toll and efficiently get our society back to normal.  This would have been a hard lockdown accompanied by a program of voluntary deliberate infection and quarantine in order to safely establish immunity without infecting vulnerable people.

But what would a hard lockdown have looked like? A full resort to what China did with Wuhan, or what Italy did in Lombardy? And how could we be sure that a program of "voluntary infection" wouldn't have spiraled out of control? Given how our approaches to this virus have evolved constantly over preceding months, I don't think it would have been a bad idea to go down this path, but would the public have accepted it? This has been a very taxing situation across the board.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Last Wednesday (July 1) there were 676 reported deaths. So far today, we are sitting at 692 deaths, with much of California, almost all of Texas, and the entirety of 8 other states still not having yet reported. This means that the 7-day moving average of deaths will be increasing again. If this up-trend in deaths holds over the coming days/weeks, then we will have started our 2nd death wave with EXACTLY the same # of days lagging behind our 2nd case wave as Iran, literally down to the day. It is remarkable that deaths appear to be up-trending with exactly the expected time lag.

We are also at 45,574 cases so far today, compared to 52,358 last Wednesday, so it is quite clear that cases will also continue to trend up. We have a shot at breaking 60k cases for the first time if California and Texas both manage to post big numbers today. If we don't quite manage it today, we probably will tomorrow.

Do you think there is any difference with how California and Texas have handled the coronavirus pandemic? Has one state been more competent than the other? Or have they both bungled their approaches? Which Governors do you think have done the best in addressing this crisis? I'm asking this because the vast majority of states (36, at last count), are experiencing a rise in cases. This includes Colorado, where coronavirus hospitalizations and cases have increased over the past two weeks.

Basically no governor has done a good job addressing the crisis.  Some have let it spread faster than other, and some were just in better position to hold it off longer.   But no one has done what really needed to be done to truly limit the death toll and efficiently get our society back to normal.  This would have been a hard lockdown accompanied by a program of voluntary deliberate infection and quarantine in order to safely establish immunity without infecting vulnerable people.

But what would a hard lockdown have looked like? A full resort to what China did with Wuhan, or what Italy did in Lombardy? And how could we be sure that a program of "voluntary infection" wouldn't have spiraled out of control? Given how our approaches to this virus have evolved constantly over preceding months, I don't think it would have been a bad idea to go down this path, but would the public have accepted it? This has been a very taxing situation across the board.

It would have at least given people a choice.  If they didn’t want to be locked down, they could get infected, quarantine for two weeks, and then be free to go wherever and do whatever they wanted.  If they didn’t want to risk being infected, they could stay in lockdown as long as they wanted, at least under herd immunity or a vaccine were achieved.

The biggest failure in overall outlook that has led to huge death rates regardless of strategy across countries like Italy, Spain, UK, Sweden, and the US has been the failure differentiate between vulnerable and less vulnerable populations in creating policy.  It is absurd to expect everyone to behave the same when some groups of people literally have 1000 times the chance of dying than other groups.

[GP270watch]

 Or we could have just worn masks and mobilized the full resources of the Federal government to get enough masks and PPE for health-workers and then masks for people, including free masks. Also while doing contact tracing and non essential lockdowns.

 A race to herd immunity strategy was modeled to be a disaster by multiple organizations and agencies. You can't pursue a strategy like that when the best mathematicians, scientists, and medical people say it's a stupid way to go. Also the race to herd immunity hinging on infected people to stay home for two weeks wouldn't work. What would make them stay home? Who would care for them if they were sick but not requiring hospitalization?

 It seems the countries who have had the most success had a clear government response with no equivocation about how serious this was. Encouraged their citizen or required masks, sometimes provided or subsidized. They also did testing followed by proactive contact tracing to see where the disease was spreading and shape policy accordingly.

[GeorgiaModerate]

City of Atlanta to require masks

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Or we could just worn masks and mobilized the full resources of the Federal government to get enough masks and PPE for health-workers and then masks for people, including free masks. Also while doing contact tracing and non essential lockdowns.

 A race to herd immunity strategy was modeled to be a disaster by multiple organizations and agencies. You can't pursue a strategy like that when the best mathematicians, scientists, and medical people say it's a stupid way to go. Also the race to her immunity hinging on infected people to stay home for two weeks wouldn't work. What would make them stay home? Who would care for them if they were sick but not requiring hospitalization?

 It seems the countries who have had the most success had a clear government response with no equivocation about how serious this was. Encouraged their citizen or required masks, sometimes provided or subsidized. They also did testing followed by proactive contact tracing to see where the disease was spreading and shape policy accordingly.

As far as I know, no one was modeling a voluntary infection strategy accompanied by a hard lockdown.  All the discussion of herd immmunity was essentially just assuming that everyone would gradually get infected at random.  This is pretty much what happened in Sweden, and why their death toll was so high.  They wanted herd immunity, but they never intentionally directed infections toward the least vulnerable,; they just sort of let the infection spread wherever.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Do you think there is any difference with how California and Texas have handled the coronavirus pandemic? Has one state been more competent than the other? Or have they both bungled their approaches? Which Governors do you think have done the best in addressing this crisis? I'm asking this because the vast majority of states (36, at last count), are experiencing a rise in cases. This includes Colorado, where coronavirus hospitalizations and cases have increased over the past two weeks.

I would say:

1) I think that in general, most people greatly underestimate the importance of sheer luck in determining which states/countries have been hit first and hardest. The reason why luck can be a much larger factor than one would intuitively suspect is because a large amount of the transmission of the virus appears to come from super-spreader events, because virus spread is path dependent, and because viruses spread exponentially. To illustrate this, suppose that you have 2 different areas which are both initially seeded with 1 case at the same time. In area A, suppose that the initial case randomly gets spread to infect 10 other people, while in area B, the initial case randomly infects only 1 other person. Then subsequently in both areas cases double in each period (we shall say that R = 2 and each case infects other cases over the course of one "period"):

Area A:
Period 1 - 1 case
Period 2 - 10 cases
Period 3 - 20 cases
Period 4 - 40 cases
Period 5 - 80 cases
Period 6 - 160 cases
Period 7 - 320 cases
Period 8 - 640 cases
Period 9 - 1280 cases
Period 10 - 2560 cases

Area B:
Period 1 - 1 case
Period 2 - 1 case
Period 3 - 2 cases
Period 4 - 4 cases
Period 5 - 8 cases
Period 6 - 16 cases
Period 7 - 32 cases
Period 8 - 64 cases
Period 9 - 128 cases
Period 10 - 256 cases

So by period 10, area A has a noticeable outbreak, whereas perhaps only a handful if any cases have even yet been detected in area B. Why? Just a matter of luck can make a huge difference. It takes another 4 periods for area B to start exceeding the level that area A already reached on period 10:

Area B continued:
Period 11 - 512 cases
Period 12 - 1024 cases
Period 13 - 2048 cases
Period 14 - 4096 cases

So clearly this sheer luck of the draw can make a huge difference, and it has nothing to do with the policies that any governor/official might adopt, or with anything else that has a logical explanation. IMO this is the major part of the explanation for why e.g. Italy got hit hard first in Europe, or why Louisiana/Michigan got hit hard early more so than e.g. Georgia/Wisconsin.



2) If you look at variation across states, there is perhaps some which may correlate in a very approximate way with politics or the policy choices made by governors, but clearly that is not the only factor, much less the most important one. States such as North Carolina, Lousiana, and California all have Democratic governors, but are being hit to roughly comparable degrees as other states in the South/Southwest. So in general I think focusing too much on governors and the politics of governors is a mistake and a distraction from the real determinants and the real issues. That said, of course it is entirely fair and deserved to criticize governors who i.e. still don't have a statewide mask order, since that is something that can potentially contribute significantly to reducing spread at a much lower cost than just about anything else.



3) Governors are also in pretty much an impossible position because it is simply not possible to control a virus on the state/local level. Epidemiological public health is simply not a state issue or a local issue. The virus doesn't care that we draw lines on a map between "states" and it doesn't care about county borders that delineate the authority of local officials. More so than the actions of any Governors/local health officials, we are having problems because there is a mismatch between the scale and nature of the problem and the limited resources of state/local government as compared to the federal government.



4) It seems clear that how many cases a state had previously is related to how many they have now (more earlier tends to mean fewer now, and this is a significant part of the reason why the northeast is doing better at least at the moment). It is a mathematical fact that if you have have more people who were previously infected and have immunity, the effective R will be lowered and this will reduce future spread. In addition, in areas where the virus has previously hit hard, people are more likely to understand the importance of changing their behaviors in a way that will keep spread lower in the future. Still, I think we should be careful not to make too much of that. Look at Louisiana, for example. It was hit hard early on, and now is being hit hard once again (this also suggests that having, say, John Bel Edwards as Governor as compared to Asa Hutchison of Arkansas next door is not necessarily the crucial factor and doesn't by itself determine the course of the epidemic in the various states).



Overall my major take regarding governors is that we shouldn't get too focused on this as being the most important issue, much less being determinative of epidemiological outcomes. The reasons for doing so are mostly partisan point scoring rather than substantive problem solving.

[Florida Man for Crime]

This is hilarious, watch if you want a quick laugh:

https://twitter.com/mattbooshell/status/1280933495674732544

[GP270watch]

Or we could just worn masks and mobilized the full resources of the Federal government to get enough masks and PPE for health-workers and then masks for people, including free masks. Also while doing contact tracing and non essential lockdowns.

 A race to herd immunity strategy was modeled to be a disaster by multiple organizations and agencies. You can't pursue a strategy like that when the best mathematicians, scientists, and medical people say it's a stupid way to go. Also the race to her immunity hinging on infected people to stay home for two weeks wouldn't work. What would make them stay home? Who would care for them if they were sick but not requiring hospitalization?

 It seems the countries who have had the most success had a clear government response with no equivocation about how serious this was. Encouraged their citizen or required masks, sometimes provided or subsidized. They also did testing followed by proactive contact tracing to see where the disease was spreading and shape policy accordingly.

As far as I know, no one was modeling a voluntary infection strategy accompanied by a hard lockdown.  All the discussion of herd immmunity was essentially just assuming that everyone would gradually get infected at random.  This is pretty much what happened in Sweden, and why their death toll was so high.  They wanted herd immunity, but they never intentionally directed infections toward the least vulnerable,; they just sort of let the infection spread wherever.

  Come on bro be serious. You really believe you came up with some brilliant strategy that all of the world's experts on pandemics somehow couldn't conceive of and model?

 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Or we could just worn masks and mobilized the full resources of the Federal government to get enough masks and PPE for health-workers and then masks for people, including free masks. Also while doing contact tracing and non essential lockdowns.

 A race to herd immunity strategy was modeled to be a disaster by multiple organizations and agencies. You can't pursue a strategy like that when the best mathematicians, scientists, and medical people say it's a stupid way to go. Also the race to her immunity hinging on infected people to stay home for two weeks wouldn't work. What would make them stay home? Who would care for them if they were sick but not requiring hospitalization?

 It seems the countries who have had the most success had a clear government response with no equivocation about how serious this was. Encouraged their citizen or required masks, sometimes provided or subsidized. They also did testing followed by proactive contact tracing to see where the disease was spreading and shape policy accordingly.

As far as I know, no one was modeling a voluntary infection strategy accompanied by a hard lockdown.  All the discussion of herd immmunity was essentially just assuming that everyone would gradually get infected at random.  This is pretty much what happened in Sweden, and why their death toll was so high.  They wanted herd immunity, but they never intentionally directed infections toward the least vulnerable,; they just sort of let the infection spread wherever.

  Come on bro be serious. You really believe you came up with some brilliant strategy that all of the world's experts on pandemics somehow couldn't conceive of and model?

I’m sure many people have thought of this before, but probably didn’t spend a lot of effort trying to model it because they believed it was politically unrealistic and would not be taken seriously.  If you know of a model for this, please post a link, I’d love to see it.

Edit: I also think a lot of people when the outbreak first started really underestimated the seriousness of the situation, and how impossible it was going to be to control using more moderate strategy.  In particular I think people underestimated the contagiousness of the virus and what asymptomatic spread really implied, and believed that temporary lockdowns by themselves would be effective.  So an extreme-sounding proposal like this may have sounded unnecessary to even consider at that point.

[Calthrina950]

Do you think there is any difference with how California and Texas have handled the coronavirus pandemic? Has one state been more competent than the other? Or have they both bungled their approaches? Which Governors do you think have done the best in addressing this crisis? I'm asking this because the vast majority of states (36, at last count), are experiencing a rise in cases. This includes Colorado, where coronavirus hospitalizations and cases have increased over the past two weeks.

Snip.

This is a very thorough explanation, and I agree with much of what you said here. It can be impossible to predict the trajectory that this virus (like other diseases) can take, and you are correct when you say that the virus does not respect, nor does its recognize, such human-created institutions as governments and state borders.

[GP270watch]

Or we could just worn masks and mobilized the full resources of the Federal government to get enough masks and PPE for health-workers and then masks for people, including free masks. Also while doing contact tracing and non essential lockdowns.

 A race to herd immunity strategy was modeled to be a disaster by multiple organizations and agencies. You can't pursue a strategy like that when the best mathematicians, scientists, and medical people say it's a stupid way to go. Also the race to her immunity hinging on infected people to stay home for two weeks wouldn't work. What would make them stay home? Who would care for them if they were sick but not requiring hospitalization?

 It seems the countries who have had the most success had a clear government response with no equivocation about how serious this was. Encouraged their citizen or required masks, sometimes provided or subsidized. They also did testing followed by proactive contact tracing to see where the disease was spreading and shape policy accordingly.

As far as I know, no one was modeling a voluntary infection strategy accompanied by a hard lockdown.  All the discussion of herd immmunity was essentially just assuming that everyone would gradually get infected at random.  This is pretty much what happened in Sweden, and why their death toll was so high.  They wanted herd immunity, but they never intentionally directed infections toward the least vulnerable,; they just sort of let the infection spread wherever.

  Come on bro be serious. You really believe you came up with some brilliant strategy that all of the world's experts on pandemics somehow couldn't conceive of and model?

I’m sure many people have thought of this before, but probably didn’t spend a lot of effort trying to model it because they believed it was politically unrealistic and would not be taken seriously.  If you know of a model for this, please post a link, I’d love to see it.

Edit: I also think a lot of people when the outbreak first started really underestimated the seriousness of the situation, and how impossible it was going to be to control using more moderate strategy.  In particular I think people underestimated the contagiousness of the virus and what asymptomatic spread really implied, and believed that temporary lockdowns by themselves would be effective.  So an extreme-sounding proposal like this may have sounded unnecessary to even consider at that point.

  Early Herd Immunity against COVID-19: A Dangerous Misconception

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1280947020572786689

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1280947020572786689

The same thing happened in NYC months ago.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Or we could just worn masks and mobilized the full resources of the Federal government to get enough masks and PPE for health-workers and then masks for people, including free masks. Also while doing contact tracing and non essential lockdowns.

 A race to herd immunity strategy was modeled to be a disaster by multiple organizations and agencies. You can't pursue a strategy like that when the best mathematicians, scientists, and medical people say it's a stupid way to go. Also the race to her immunity hinging on infected people to stay home for two weeks wouldn't work. What would make them stay home? Who would care for them if they were sick but not requiring hospitalization?

 It seems the countries who have had the most success had a clear government response with no equivocation about how serious this was. Encouraged their citizen or required masks, sometimes provided or subsidized. They also did testing followed by proactive contact tracing to see where the disease was spreading and shape policy accordingly.

As far as I know, no one was modeling a voluntary infection strategy accompanied by a hard lockdown.  All the discussion of herd immmunity was essentially just assuming that everyone would gradually get infected at random.  This is pretty much what happened in Sweden, and why their death toll was so high.  They wanted herd immunity, but they never intentionally directed infections toward the least vulnerable,; they just sort of let the infection spread wherever.

  Come on bro be serious. You really believe you came up with some brilliant strategy that all of the world's experts on pandemics somehow couldn't conceive of and model?

I’m sure many people have thought of this before, but probably didn’t spend a lot of effort trying to model it because they believed it was politically unrealistic and would not be taken seriously.  If you know of a model for this, please post a link, I’d love to see it.

Edit: I also think a lot of people when the outbreak first started really underestimated the seriousness of the situation, and how impossible it was going to be to control using more moderate strategy.  In particular I think people underestimated the contagiousness of the virus and what asymptomatic spread really implied, and believed that temporary lockdowns by themselves would be effective.  So an extreme-sounding proposal like this may have sounded unnecessary to even consider at that point.

  Early Herd Immunity against COVID-19: A Dangerous Misconception

The article explicitly assumes the “current” (for when it was written) death rate of 2000 deaths/day would continue under a herd immunity strategy.  It makes no attempt to model a death rate among the young and healthy.  The whole purpose of deliberate infection and quarantine is to dramatically reduce the death rate by only infecting those least likely to die, rather than just infecting people unknowlingly and randomly.