That was weak. — Monitor

Really? You find TP in the shops where you live?

Does this satisfy your doubts that the scientific community describes things as growing exponentially if, in some time frame their interested in, the phenomena does grow exponentially? — boethius

Yeah, the scientific community describes things as growing exponentially for as long as they grow exponentially. You may insist on exponential growth if you think you have a good handle on the causal mechanism, and can account both for the function and for the changing exponent, without having to make retrospective adjustments after each new measurement. What you don't do is say: "Oh it's still exponential, because we can still express it as a percentage increase." Because that is just cargo cult science.

Really? You find TP in the shops where you live? — Nobeernolife

No, but I find it’s not just (or even mostly) poor people hoarding it. Because they barely have money to buy it with if they can find it.

Yeah, the scientific community describes things as growing exponentially for as long as they grow exponentially. — SophistiCat

This is exactly what I explain in the sentence you reference. If in some time frame of interest (such as "until now"), the data fits an exponential growth curve, scientists will say "it is growing exponentially".

You may insist on exponential growth if you think you have a good handle on the causal mechanism, and can account both for the function and for the changing exponent, without having to make retrospective adjustments after each new measurement. — SophistiCat

Did you even bother reading my comments?

I'm not insisting things will continue to grow exponentially in Italy, I'm saying it's not ruled out by the current data.

17% daily growth rate this week could mean 17% growth rate next week and the week after that and the week after that, until 50% of the population is infected and growth rate reduces due to running out of hosts.

Or, it could indeed mean 5% growth rate next week and then approaching 0% growth rate week after that.

Since we don't know which scenario we are in (precisely because we cannot know for sure all the mechanisms of transmission and how many need to be cut to approach 0% growth rate), is why, once this situation is reached the risk management conclusion quickly becomes "maybe what we're doing now is enough ... but we can no longer risk being wrong, so we need to do even more social distancing and enforce compliance with the military".

If it was "certain" that growth rate was decreasing to zero, it's unlikely marshal law would be implemented (it is quite a big step for civilian authorities to take).

How do you know that? Right now, it seems to be toilet paper. — Nobeernolife

Yeah, fuck the free market.

Well, if it flows back to China for more cheap plastic crap, what the difference? — Nobeernolife

In real terms, it's China that's loosing value (production capacity and resources) and is only getting money in return.

I knew it :lol:

I'm not insisting things will continue to grow exponentially in Italy, I'm saying it's not ruled out by the current data.

17% daily growth rate this week could mean 17% growth rate next week and the week after that and the week after that, until 50% of the population is infected and growth rate reduces due to running out of hosts.

Or, it could indeed mean 5% growth rate next week and then approaching 0% growth rate week after that.

Since we don't know which scenario we are in (precisely because we cannot know for sure all the mechanisms of transmission and how many need to be cut to approach 0% growth rate), is why, once this situation is reached the risk management conclusion quickly becomes "maybe what we're doing now is enough ... but we can no longer risk being wrong, so we need to do even more social distancing and enforce compliance with the military". — boethius

Countries that have had the outbreak earlier are good forecasts for later epidemic areas.

Italy with being earliest hit and where the containment of the outbreak was lost (and likely the pandemic spread without notice at first) is the worst case scenario. China with imposing draconian measures and South Korea responding quite well to a serious pandemic are other good forecast. They have not continued exponential on growth. Let's remember that IF the situation in China to be as bad as in Italy would mean that over 114 000 would have died of the virus. It hasn't. If it can hide double or triple the amount of actual deaths, not even a police state like China can repress over 100 000 deaths in our time of internet. Lockdowns do work.

(A bit old stats, but they show the trend in China)



South Korea:


With the US that has only few states implementing a lockdown, but general social distancing has taken effect so I assume that the US forecast is a bit similar to Italy, but less explosive growth than in Italy. Add the inefficiency of the Trump administration, the size of the country and my forecast is that it will still be bad. To be as bad as in Italy it's now, about 25 000 Americans have to die of the pandemic.

Hence if you make forecasts, I'd make the estimate that on some level will the growth stop and start to plateau. When? Well, Italy will be the example. And of course, the only way for Republicans to get into their thick head that one should invest in a global effort to prevent pandemics is that it will be bad, unfortunately.

Still I'll bet that well less than one million in the World will die from the corona-virus.

Yeah, China fights back the meme that it was a "Chinese" disease. Blame the Italians!!! (If Trump & Fox News can do it, so can the Chinese and CGTN. Both are administration propaganda machines.)

This is true, but there is also the crucial moment measured in days just when the pandemic got rolling on. When it started in Italy, Europe or the West hadn't got the pandemic hysteria. Now when it has truly started in the US, the population takes action. — ssu

Yes it does. The question is whether the specific actions taken have been/will be effective, which is difficult to measure in a timely manner. My concern is that the time window for containing the virus in the US before it overwhelms the healthcare system (as we've seen in Europe) will soon close. Because testing has been inadequate, it's not even known how long that time window is.

The hammer and dance approach is that if strong measures are taken now to contain the virus, that can provide time later for understanding the virus better and allows options for further action. That must include clear and consistent messaging that the problem is extremely serious, and being up front about the actions to be taken and the reasons for them. (This seems to be happening now at least at the state level with NY, CA and others, but needs to extend to the federal level as well.)

Conversely, if ineffective measures are taken and the time window closes, then that leaves limited options, limited understanding and potentially millions of deaths.

And just how successful that "social distancing"? If we take into consideration that China has roughly about 24 more times people than Italy, then it wouldn't be that China has less deaths. Yet month ago when the epidemic started in Italy and when there were only a handful of deaths the actions were taken only regionally. The CNN journalist one month ago were reporting from a Venice quite full with tourists going around. — ssu

Yes, so compare the consistent messaging (and follow through) in China, South Korea, Japan, etc., with Italy, etc. The US needs to do the same, and quickly.

I figure there'll be flattening as more stringent measures are imposed, so my figure involves a continued fall-off in the log curve along recent Italian lines. — Baden

Fair enough. My concern, though, is that we don't see that in the data right now. And the lack of testing to date in the US means that there may be many more cases out there than anyone realizes.

To me that looks like it'll peak before 100,000 cases. Scale up to America and they should slow down and peak before 1 million (I'm guessing in a couple of months) presuming increasingly strict measures (short of "hammer"-like moves, which still seem unlikely on a national level). — Baden

Hopefully so.

The politicians are headless chickens following what their experts tell them. There are teams of experts assembled in each (wealthy) country to manage the crisis. — Punshhh

Teams of experts could easily be assembled to tell the headless chickens what to do about climate change. What gives one crisis traction and the other none? Covid-19 is not a threat to the vast majority of humans, but the lockdowns affect everyone. Why aren't we this selfless regarding other issues like inequality and climate change?

I think at least part of the answer lies in our myths and fears.

Teams of experts could easily be assembled to tell the headless chickens what to do about climate change. What gives one crisis traction and the other none? — frank

Because everybody understands if a person dies to Covid-19, the reason is the pandemic.

If climate change ruins the Egyptian harvest and the economic recession makes it that the government cannot prevent famine, which then turns into a civil war, how are you going to put the reason for masses of Egyptians killed like in Syria now on climate change? You can't. Can you blame climate policy on the deaths of the next Katrina type hurricane hitting Central America? Nope.

That's the reason.

This is exactly what I explain in the sentence you reference. If in some time frame of interest (such as "until now"), the data fits an exponential growth curve, scientists will say "it is growing exponentially". — boethius

There is always some time frame in which data fits an exponential growth curve! Or logarithmic. Or linear. Or better yet polynomial - it can be made to fit any curve over any time scale. But no scientist in their right mind would propose an exponential growth model just because you can fit an exponential curve to two consecutive points. This is not how scientific modeling works.

yes, I get that it's a poor comparison. My point is that when people were hoarding toilet paper it wasn't because of anything real. They were responding to a myth.

There is no myth for climate change. That's not part of our collective ancestral memory.

Thanks! It's strangely quiet right now (with rumbling in the distance) :grimace: — frank

You are doing a fantastic job and I can only imagine what anticipating a hurricane can feel like when you are on a surf board in the ocean.
Try to hang as loose as possible when able so you have the power and the endurance to hang on when it comes over you.
We are standing beside you ( socially distant ) but together in our mission.
Thank you for going to work because you love us AND we will stay at home because we love you :hearts:

:smile: I was having to use my poker face yesterday because I don't usually work in the emergency dept. I'm an ICU person. But I made it through.

I think of all the people who don't have a paycheck right now while I do. I hope it moves through quickly.

Another nail in the coffin of "It only affects old people and the vulnerable":

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/i-spent-eight-days-in-hospital-hooked-up-to-oxygen-ex-loi-player-lee-duffy-tells-of-covid-19-infection-39065277.html

Coming soon to a sane government near you.

My mum has it. 55 with asthma. :confused:

Shit. Here's hoping it doesn't become bad. :pray:

:sad: Sorry to hear @Michael. Best wishes and hopes for recovery, man. :pray:

May we know how you know? I assume by test, but in the US we don't yet really have tests.

And, I live in Massachusetts, US. I do not know Michael or his mum, but this is the first person I know of, even this indirectly, to have the coronavirus. And what Baden said

She hasn't been tested as apparently they only test people if you know you've been in contact with someone who's tested positive. But she's an ex-nurse and current university senior lecturer of nursing, so I trust her self-diagnosis, although I hope she's wrong of course.

they only test people if you know you've been in contact with someone who's tested positive — Michael

This is such a stupid rule. The amount of positives will be vastly underreported >> UK becoming the next coronavirus basketcase. In Ireland, you call a doctor. If your symptoms fit the profile, you get a test.

Maybe an exercise in Bayesian statistics? I.e., a concern with false positives?

I know someone of around that age who has/had it and experienced only minor symptoms, the worst being fatigue. Godspeed to you and your mother, friend.

Maybe an exercise in Bayesian statistics? I.e., a concern with false positives? — tim wood

My friend tested me on that a couple of weeks ago:

Out of 20,338 people tested in Britain for covid-19 164 people have the disease. The test itself is 97% accurate. You take the test and it comes back positive. What's the chance you actually have it based on this single test?

Apparently the answer is something like 21%?

Here in Australia, we're going into what amounts to partial lockdown - from midday today pubs, restaurants, meeting halls, will be closed. So far nobody in my immediate circle has tested positive but you have the feeling it's only a matter of time. The Australian government has so far signalled about AU$124 billion in various kinds of relief and support payments. National infection stats for Australia are as of this minute 1,314 (from this very useful Johns Hopkins real-time dashboard.)

Me, I'm philosophical about it - I am able to WFH and am contracted until end April, with the possibility of further work - in a very large house next to a playing field, so if one had to be marooned at home, I can't think of a better place. I'm investigating putting an Intel Stick and webcam on our television so we can use it to teleconference with family living far and wide. I hope everyone is OK and gets through this ordeal. :pray:

I bought some Hydroxychloroquine yesterday. It's touted as safe and one of the reasons it's been halting the spread of Coronovirus in South Korea and China.

I hope your mother is wrong this time, but take care and hope for best.