Sam Lowry said:

---

Absolutely fascinating.

Meanwhile the virus continues to spread exponentially.

---

Which again should surprise no one as virtually every virus does. But it also is not spreading exponentially everywhere.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My gut tells me that, necessary as it may be, having county judges issue the shut-down orders is an act of political cowardice which will backfire.

People who pay no personal cost for such decisions should not be in charge of those decisions.

---

Actually it is an act of political courage that governors and local leaders have to take. Because frankly no one above that level is leading at all.

---

You say so, I see different.

Time will tell.

But I pay attention to what people say and do, and already there are some restaurants serving seated patrons in defiance of the ban here in Harris County, and already there are people ignoring shelter-in-place orders in California and Pennsylvania, because the Governors in those places are great in front of TV cameras, but lousy at really understanding what their orders cost regular people.

Not saying I agree with the defiance - I am self-quarantining for 2 weeks because my wife was in Hong Kong caring for her mother, but like I said I look and I listen and it's easy to issue edicts like you are some kind of King, and not make provision for the cost to ordinary people. There is going to be push-back, and that will have its own effect on the virus spread and consequences.

---

Those people disobeying are arrogant and selfish.

---

You would know.

---

Yes, I, would know because I was and am there. But your assumption that I woulld know means that indeed those folk who go out and infect others they are arrogant and selfish

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My gut tells me that, necessary as it may be, having county judges issue the shut-down orders is an act of political cowardice which will backfire.

People who pay no personal cost for such decisions should not be in charge of those decisions.

---

Actually it is an act of political courage that governors and local leaders have to take. Because frankly no one above that level is leading at all.

---

You say so, I see different.

Time will tell.

But I pay attention to what people say and do, and already there are some restaurants serving seated patrons in defiance of the ban here in Harris County, and already there are people ignoring shelter-in-place orders in California and Pennsylvania, because the Governors in those places are great in front of TV cameras, but lousy at really understanding what their orders cost regular people.

Not saying I agree with the defiance - I am self-quarantining for 2 weeks because my wife was in Hong Kong caring for her mother, but like I said I look and I listen and it's easy to issue edicts like you are some kind of King, and not make provision for the cost to ordinary people. There is going to be push-back, and that will have its own effect on the virus spread and consequences.

---

Those people disobeying are arrogant and selfish.

---

You would know.

---

Yes, I, would know because I was and am there. But your assumption that I woulld know means that indeed those folk who go out and infect others they are arrogant and selfish

---

I simply observe your behavior here at S365 and apply it to the broader scale.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

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.

---

I agree with your points. My point is even more simplistic. While the charts dragged out by the CDC and elsewhere showed the classic exponent hockey stick expansion, in reality it hasn't come close to materializing in trends, not to mention I don't think people know how exponent growth works. Doubling every x days/weeks/months etc. isn't exponential growth. For a simplistic example, everyone has been dragging out the example of doubling everyday and after 30 days you'd have so much. For perspective, if you started day one with a dime and applied the doubling model, you'd be a billionaire after 30 days. In an exponent model, after two weeks, you'd have all the money in the world.

So no, we're aren't seeing exponential growth as was "estimated".

ATL Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

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.

---

I agree with your points. My point is even more simplistic. While the charts dragged out by the CDC and elsewhere showed the classic exponent hockey stick expansion, in reality it hasn't come close to materializing in trends, not to mention I don't think people know how exponent growth works. Doubling every x days/weeks/months etc. isn't exponential growth. For a simplistic example, everyone has been dragging out the example of doubling everyday and after 30 days you'd have so much. For perspective, if you started day one with a dime and applied the doubling model, you'd be a billionaire after 30 days. In an exponent model, after two weeks, you'd have all the money in the world.

So no, we're aren't seeing exponential growth as was "estimated".

---

Exponential growth doesn't simply begin with a value and apply an exponent to it, as with your "all the money in the world" example. The exponent is the number of time intervals applied to the rate of growth plus one. The rate can be anything - 10%, 50%, doubling, etc.

That is what was predicted, and it is what the graphs show.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

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.

---

I agree with your points. My point is even more simplistic. While the charts dragged out by the CDC and elsewhere showed the classic exponent hockey stick expansion, in reality it hasn't come close to materializing in trends, not to mention I don't think people know how exponent growth works. Doubling every x days/weeks/months etc. isn't exponential growth. For a simplistic example, everyone has been dragging out the example of doubling everyday and after 30 days you'd have so much. For perspective, if you started day one with a dime and applied the doubling model, you'd be a billionaire after 30 days. In an exponent model, after two weeks, you'd have all the money in the world.

So no, we're aren't seeing exponential growth as was "estimated".

---

Exponential growth doesn't simply begin with a value and apply an exponent to it, as with your "all the money in the world" example. The exponent is the number of time intervals applied to the rate of growth plus one. The rate can be anything - 10%, 50%, doubling, etc.

That is what was predicted, and it is what the graphs show.

---

According to the CDC, day over day (reporting day):
1. Monday - 18,185 new cases (assume that includes the weekend, so expect it to be higher)
2. Tuesday - 10,770 new cases
3. Wednesday - 10,270 new cases

I do not think that is exponential growth. When considering the lag in testing, as noted there is a huge novel impact to increases in cases as a function of testing not incidence.

The good news is the mortality is still around 1.3% and 60% of cases are in New York, Washington, and California.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

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.

---

I agree with your points. My point is even more simplistic. While the charts dragged out by the CDC and elsewhere showed the classic exponent hockey stick expansion, in reality it hasn't come close to materializing in trends, not to mention I don't think people know how exponent growth works. Doubling every x days/weeks/months etc. isn't exponential growth. For a simplistic example, everyone has been dragging out the example of doubling everyday and after 30 days you'd have so much. For perspective, if you started day one with a dime and applied the doubling model, you'd be a billionaire after 30 days. In an exponent model, after two weeks, you'd have all the money in the world.

So no, we're aren't seeing exponential growth as was "estimated".

---

Exponential growth doesn't simply begin with a value and apply an exponent to it, as with your "all the money in the world" example. The exponent is the number of time intervals applied to the rate of growth plus one. The rate can be anything - 10%, 50%, doubling, etc.

That is what was predicted, and it is what the graphs show.

---

According to the CDC, day over day (reporting day):
1. Monday - 18,185 new cases (assume that includes the weekend, so expect it to be higher)
2. Tuesday - 10,770 new cases
3. Wednesday - 10,270 new cases

I do not think that is exponential growth. When considering the lag in testing, as noted there is a huge novel impact to increases in cases as a function of testing not incidence.

The good news is the mortality is still around 1.3% and 60% of cases are in New York, Washington, and California.

---

You have to look at the whole picture, not just a few days.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

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.

---

I agree with your points. My point is even more simplistic. While the charts dragged out by the CDC and elsewhere showed the classic exponent hockey stick expansion, in reality it hasn't come close to materializing in trends, not to mention I don't think people know how exponent growth works. Doubling every x days/weeks/months etc. isn't exponential growth. For a simplistic example, everyone has been dragging out the example of doubling everyday and after 30 days you'd have so much. For perspective, if you started day one with a dime and applied the doubling model, you'd be a billionaire after 30 days. In an exponent model, after two weeks, you'd have all the money in the world.

So no, we're aren't seeing exponential growth as was "estimated".

---

Exponential growth doesn't simply begin with a value and apply an exponent to it, as with your "all the money in the world" example. The exponent is the number of time intervals applied to the rate of growth plus one. The rate can be anything - 10%, 50%, doubling, etc.

That is what was predicted, and it is what the graphs show.

---

According to the CDC, day over day (reporting day):
1. Monday - 18,185 new cases (assume that includes the weekend, so expect it to be higher)
2. Tuesday - 10,770 new cases
3. Wednesday - 10,270 new cases

I do not think that is exponential growth. When considering the lag in testing, as noted there is a huge novel impact to increases in cases as a function of testing not incidence.

The good news is the mortality is still around 1.3% and 60% of cases are in New York, Washington, and California.

---

You have to look at the whole picture, not just a few days.

---

Correct. Hence, it is not growing exponentially by your definition. Now of course the data could change tomorrow.

You're smarter than this.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're smarter than this.

---

So are you. These models aren't close to exponential by any standard. And the link you provided doesn't say what you think it does from a mathematics perspective. These are attempts at predictive paranoia. I would have thought you'd be above it.

EDIT: And this doesn't mean I'm not for protecting the vulnerable and taking precautions.

jupiter said:

---

You were warned repeatedly that this could happen. Weeks, months, years, even decades in advance generally, and more recently to this specific exact sp threat. Acting then could have cost you pennies . You callously ignored every warning.

Worse, not even did you fail to act , even more unforgivably, you completely failed to prepare.

You learned ziltch, zero ,nothing from the 2008 financial crisis which blew up in a similar fashion.

You never saw that coming either. Now you're blaming us for the lockdowns because you have to deal with the consequences? Remind me again why I should care what you have to say? Was it worth it to YOU? You have noone to blame but yourself, why should we listen to you now?

---

What are you talking about?

It's helpful if you post the quote and poster you are answering

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're smarter than this.

---

And the link you provided doesn't say what you think it does from a mathematics perspective.

---

I'm curious to know what you think it says.

Anyway, cases are doubling at least every two or three days (which is faster than any other country). That's what everyone means when they say it's spreading exponentially. Here's what it looks like on a graph:

These are facts, not predictions.

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

I'm awaiting a better one. Feel free to chip in.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're smarter than this.

---

And the link you provided doesn't say what you think it does from a mathematics perspective.

---

I'm curious to know what you think it says.

Anyway, cases are doubling at least every two or three days (which is faster than any other country). That's what everyone means when they say it's spreading exponentially. Here's what it looks like on a graph:

These are facts, not predictions.

---

Testing is picking up faster than other nations. America was slow to the game but when we play, we win. You are seeing nothing but light in the darkness that was already there. You aren't seeing a pandemic that was invisible. We are doing quite well.

Well the fact is most of these cases were already out there, we are just now getting the results of the backlog of tests and well finally testing people that have the illness.

This will start decreasing by the end of the week or at most end of next week, mainly because the backlog of testing will catch up, some because the lockdown will start working.

Cases will still increase, but at a decreasing rate.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're smarter than this.

---

And the link you provided doesn't say what you think it does from a mathematics perspective.

---

I'm curious to know what you think it says.

Anyway, cases are doubling at least every two or three days (which is faster than any other country). That's what everyone means when they say it's spreading exponentially. Here's what it looks like on a graph:

These are facts, not predictions.

---

Well, here are the facts as I know them:

'Number of cases' refers to the number of virus cases confirmed through testing, not people known or believed to have the virus at a specific time and date. Ergo, the rise in reported cases is the result of improved delivery of reliable tests, which has been a concern and priority for some time.

That means the number might be good news, as it eliminates guessing and assumption, replacing it with useful data.

That's just one example of why it's important to understand what is being reported.

We also know that the number and severity of cases varies in different countries, and within each country. This is fascinating, as it provides the possibility of slowing down or more effectively fighting the virus.

This too is good news, although some here seem almost desperate to deny that fact.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Well the fact is most of these cases were already out there, we are just now getting the results of the backlog of tests and well finally testing people that have the illness.

This will start decreasing by the end of the week or at most end of next week, mainly because the backlog of testing will catch up, some because the lockdown will start working.

Cases will still increase, but at a decreasing rate.

---

This is a prediction.

I hope you're right.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Well the fact is most of these cases were already out there, we are just now getting the results of the backlog of tests and well finally testing people that have the illness.

This will start decreasing by the end of the week or at most end of next week, mainly because the backlog of testing will catch up, some because the lockdown will start working.

Cases will still increase, but at a decreasing rate.

---

This is a prediction.

I hope you're right.

---

The first half of his post is a fact.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Well the fact is most of these cases were already out there, we are just now getting the results of the backlog of tests and well finally testing people that have the illness.

This will start decreasing by the end of the week or at most end of next week, mainly because the backlog of testing will catch up, some because the lockdown will start working.

Cases will still increase, but at a decreasing rate.

---

This is a prediction.

I hope you're right.

---

Yes a prediction. I'm wrong plenty. But, if we are really sheltering and 5 days is the average time for symptoms to show up, the end of next week is 10 days away. There should be a slow in the uptick of the spread.

Now, if folks are cheating, or spending too much of their time in the Supermarket or places where people can still gather, sure it could continue to accelerate.

We are gaining 11,000 cases a day right now, by April 4th, hopefully, and I believe there will be a drop off in average new cases. Hopefully.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Well the fact is most of these cases were already out there, we are just now getting the results of the backlog of tests and well finally testing people that have the illness.

This will start decreasing by the end of the week or at most end of next week, mainly because the backlog of testing will catch up, some because the lockdown will start working.

Cases will still increase, but at a decreasing rate.

---

This is a prediction.

I hope you're right.

---

In fairness to what you have said, instead of the growth being exponential right now, I would consider the growth to be accelerating.

Gains 8,000, then 9000, then 10,000, now about 11,000 a day. If the trend continues we could see us gaining 20,000 cases a day in 10 days.

Like I said, hopefully it is much less than this in 10 days.

HashTag said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

My gut tells me that, necessary as it may be, having county judges issue the shut-down orders is an act of political cowardice which will backfire.

People who pay no personal cost for such decisions should not be in charge of those decisions.

---

Actually it is an act of political courage that governors and local leaders have to take. Because frankly no one above that level is leading at all.

---

You say so, I see different.

Time will tell.

But I pay attention to what people say and do, and already there are some restaurants serving seated patrons in defiance of the ban here in Harris County, and already there are people ignoring shelter-in-place orders in California and Pennsylvania, because the Governors in those places are great in front of TV cameras, but lousy at really understanding what their orders cost regular people.

Not saying I agree with the defiance - I am self-quarantining for 2 weeks because my wife was in Hong Kong caring for her mother, but like I said I look and I listen and it's easy to issue edicts like you are some kind of King, and not make provision for the cost to ordinary people. There is going to be push-back, and that will have its own effect on the virus spread and consequences.

---

Those people disobeying are arrogant and selfish.

---

You would know.

---

Quote:

---

.

---

Yes, he has been fighting arrogant and selfish types for a long time, He certainly recognizes the behavior.

This is fun!

---

You be you quash, and I will be honest, as I always am.

---

Not to defend quash, but it's possible he's not purposely telling lies. He seems to not know the difference in his opinion vs fact.

Like all the other wacky libbies, quash sees what he believes instead of the other way around

---

Tell you what, I'll defend myself, mkay?

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Well the fact is most of these cases were already out there, we are just now getting the results of the backlog of tests and well finally testing people that have the illness.

This will start decreasing by the end of the week or at most end of next week, mainly because the backlog of testing will catch up, some because the lockdown will start working.

Cases will still increase, but at a decreasing rate.

---

This is a prediction.

I hope you're right.

---

In fairness to what you have said, instead of the growth being exponential right now, I would consider the growth to be accelerating.

Gains 8,000, then 9000, then 10,000, now about 11,000 a day. If the trend continues we could see us gaining 20,000 cases a day in 10 days.

Like I said, hopefully it is much less than this in 10 days.

---

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

New cases each day in US:

3/17: 1.4k
3/18: 5.9k
3/19: 5.4k
3/20 6.4k
3/21: 7.8k
3/22: 10.6k
3/23: 9.9k

Jack Bauer said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Well the fact is most of these cases were already out there, we are just now getting the results of the backlog of tests and well finally testing people that have the illness.

This will start decreasing by the end of the week or at most end of next week, mainly because the backlog of testing will catch up, some because the lockdown will start working.

Cases will still increase, but at a decreasing rate.

---

This is a prediction.

I hope you're right.

---

In fairness to what you have said, instead of the growth being exponential right now, I would consider the growth to be accelerating.

Gains 8,000, then 9000, then 10,000, now about 11,000 a day. If the trend continues we could see us gaining 20,000 cases a day in 10 days.

Like I said, hopefully it is much less than this in 10 days.

---

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

New cases each day in US:

3/17: 1.4k
3/18: 5.9k
3/19: 5.4k
3/20 6.4k
3/21: 7.8k
3/22: 10.6k
3/23: 9.9k

---

03/22 9,339 3/23 10,168 3/24 11,089 Possibly a different source of data. Botton line, the trend is upward.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Incredibly detailed info here.

I'm told the proper measure is deaths. Experts say that increase in positive results are related to increase in testing.

For example. If I test 10 today and get 3 positives and 20 tomorrow with 6 positives, that doesn't properly show the rate of growth. It shows increase in testing.

3 deaths today and 6 tomorrow better represents the growth.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

---

S. Korea implemented that plan upfront: test, quarantine the positives and test their contacts. Our systemic failure has been testing.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

---

S. Korea implemented that plan upfront: test, quarantine the positives and test their contacts. Our systemic failure has been testing.

---

I disagree. Korea has a much smaller population, so we should be compared to other large populations who are also highly mobile.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

---

For our purposes, exponential and geometric are the same thing. The point with regard to parabolic growth is that the rate of increase does not appear to be falling.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

---

For our purposes, exponential and geometric are the same thing. The point with regard to parabolic growth is that the rate of increase does not appear to be falling.

---

No, they are not at all the same thing, especially with regard to projections.

As for the rate of increase, it matters if you look at specific regions/countries or just get lazy and use aggregates.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

---

S. Korea implemented that plan upfront: test, quarantine the positives and test their contacts. Our systemic failure has been testing.

---

I disagree. Korea has a much smaller population, so we should be compared to other large populations who are also highly mobile.

---

Scale doesn't change the solution. And Koreans are highly mobile.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

---

S. Korea implemented that plan upfront: test, quarantine the positives and test their contacts. Our systemic failure has been testing.

---

I disagree. Korea has a much smaller population, so we should be compared to other large populations who are also highly mobile.

---

Scale doesn't change the solution. And Koreans are highly mobile.

---

Scale matters. Locking down a city which is compliant by nature and one of a few of any size is much easier than the same effort here.

Cherry-picking what you want to consider is no way to find valid answers.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Just because it gets an entry in wikipedia, does not change the actual definition of 'exponential'

---

x to the power of n is an exponent. And if you look at history, virus growth is parabolic, not exponential.

---

It is often exponential at first. It depends largely on the amount of intervention (a.k.a. "panic and hysteria") applied to the situation early on. The best you can say in this case is that if it isn't exponential, it's close enough that it's hard for most experts to tell the difference.

---

Absolute BS. "Exponential" does not mean "at first". Geometric expansion could be called "exponential" using words that carelessly.

At some point it's going to be obvious that dozens of millions of people in the US will be exposed to C-19, and we'll see maybe 2 million cases. That's serious of course, but it means less than one percent of the population will contract the disease.

When people understand that A) the virus will infect millions, but also B) most Americans won't be infected, nor will someone in their family. That will create pressure for Congress to come up with a plan which protects against spread of the virus, but puts people back to work and backs off on restrictions.

Frankly, I don't see anyone right now smart enough to figure out a plan which does both of those goals.

---

S. Korea implemented that plan upfront: test, quarantine the positives and test their contacts. Our systemic failure has been testing.

---

I disagree. Korea has a much smaller population, so we should be compared to other large populations who are also highly mobile.

---

Scale doesn't change the solution. And Koreans are highly mobile.

---

Scale matters. Locking down a city which is compliant by nature and one of a few of any size is much easier than the same effort here.

Cherry-picking what you want to consider is no way to find valid answers.

---

Asian societies are far more conformist while Western culture is far more individualistic. I made that point on this board weeks ago.

You wanted a plan, I gave you one, plus a successful example. Test, track, quarantine.

If you've got a better plan to meet your two criteria post up.