How exactly are there "only" supposed to be 60,000 deaths?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. There are already 37,000 deaths. It won't be 25% of the current rate for 3 months

The rate of new deaths seems to have declined to less than 7% per day, a good sign. If it is 6% for a week, then 5% for a week, the 4, 3, 2, 1 ... six weeks.

1.06 ^ 7 = 1.50. Times 37,000 = 54,600
1.05 ^ 7 = 1.47. Times 54,600 = 80,700
1.04 ^ 7 = 1.31. Times 80,700 = 106,000
1.03 ^ 7 = 1.23. Times 106,000 = 130,000
1.02 ^ 7 = 1.15. Times 130,000 = 149,000
1.01 ^ 7 = 1.07. Times 149,000 = 160,000

If we do better: Four weeks ago there were 100 deaths. If we posit we are at the peak and can have a four week decline ahead of us, ...

1.055 ^ 7 = 1.45. Times 37,000 = 53,800
1.040 ^ 7 = 1.31. Times 53,800 = 70,500
1.025 ^ 7 = 1.19. Times 70,500 = 83,800
1.010 ^ 7 = 1.07. Times 83,800 = 89,700

(I have retained extra digits in my calculations, so yours probably won't match digit for digit but should be very similar).

So my best case is at least 90,000 deaths. I think it is more likely to be the first scenario, perhaps 160,000 deaths. But it could easily be more depending on how red hatters roll the dice in the next 10 to 14 days. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13306154 We could be soon into a second wave, a red hat wave and go beyond 160,000.