ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
The exponent models are looking more and more far fetched even as we see the rapid expansion of cases and deaths even in the most hard hit areas.
It's very interesting to debate the chances of exponential spread and all the factors that play into it.
Meanwhile the virus continues to spread exponentially.
Incrementally, not exponentially.
Exactly. My frustration with the modeling / predictions are:
1. Governments are responding with draconian measures regardless of actual local impact, pointing to worst case. A sophisticated reaction would be more of a step response. But we're in "monkey see, monkey do" land. But as quash noted, if you under-react, you lose. If you over-react, you can alway play the "if I didn't then millions would have died and we never know how bad it would have been."
2. The models are shockingly unsophisticated. Forecasters pick some assumptions and put them in relatively simple models. They are not great at accounting for diversity around density, climate, population demographics, social determinants of health, socioeconomic factors, etc. So if you take the worst inputs from the worst situation and simply change the denominator, your doomsday numerator frightens.
3. The model certainly cannot account for things like "Kiss a Chinaman" day that supposedly occurred in Italy, which I'm sure helped slow the spread of the virus.
The virus is spreading but not at an alarming rate across the country. Sure, there are dense areas where there is rapid spread, and shockingly areas with high Chinese populations were hit harder first, especially on the coasts where there is more international travel. None of that should surprise anyone.