I know, I know - Fox News . . . But according to the article Wuhan remains locked down and will remain so at least until April 8. That may explain how they have managed to keep COVID-19 from re-exploding there.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-end-lockdown-coronavirus-hubei-wuhan
I hope that they come out of lockdown in an intelligent way - something similar to what South Korea has done. It can be done.
P wrote:
A quick followup to one of my notes from yesterday. Yesterday I wrote:
"Note 6: It took roughly 9.5 days to go from 550 cases to 5,500 cases. Another 7.5 days to get to 55,000. Expect to hit 550,000 cases in the US within 8 - 12 days. This is just how exponential growth works. "
It may be worth mentioning that this means that in less than two weeks time the US will have more reported cases than the entire world, including the US, has today.
Let that sink in.
So you've pretty much answered my question from earlier today, based on exponential growth, in about 40-45 days give or take everyone in the US will have it.
I guessing that at some point the exponent you are using will change. Hopefully sooner than later so as to avoid the horrors you referred to earlier.
I will say this, the stock market is sure a gamble... there has been zero positive news about the end of this pandemic yet up it charges.... the investing public is so fickel.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
jesseriley doesn't spread lies like Rigged.
Ha! That's LR lib echo chamber groupthink.
Meanwhile, Trump approval is ticking up. 47.1%
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.htmlKAG2020
Crisis bump?
Sort of like how most presidents get a bump during times of war initially. Post 9-11, post Gulf War, etc. No one is paying attention to the Dem Primary.
Of course if you scroll down you'll see how he is polling vs Biden and Sanders.....
My best guess is that the virus fizzles out early summer and Trump's approval goes back to normal.
We will probably also see a record job growth as the unemployed get their jobs back.
Alan
Trump administration failure.
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/nurse-kios-kelly-covid-19-death-012631212.html
Joe Blow wrote:
eye in the sly wrote:
DhP wrote:
The U.S. has passed Italy in COVID-19 cases!
China 81,285
USA 74,399
Italy 74,386
CountChocula wrote:
Italy hasn't reported their numbers for today yet.
(US will actually pass Italy by this weekend)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
China 81,285
Italy 80,589
USA 80,071
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
USA 81,322
China 81,285
Italy 80,589
No olympics, no problem. We still win!!
The USA has tested more people in 7 days than S.Korea has in 8 weeks. More tests lead to higher case totals which result in a higher death count. However, this gives us a lower mortality rate which gets lower with every test.
China never reported accurate numbers. They have way more than what’s reported.
China lied.
People died.
Trigged is the most gullible ever.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trumps-faulty-testing-claims/
Context.
https://www.thelocal.de/20200326/germany-ramps-up-coronavirus-tests-to-500000-a-week
One here for you stats nerds.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/26/health/number-of-cases-testing-data-intl/index.html
"Unfortunately there is no one metric that enables us to compare situations in different countries," Tildesley said. Looking at the number of deaths gives some indication about the severity of the situation in each country, but international comparisons are again complicated. No two countries are alike when it comes to access to healthcare and medical resources, underlying health conditions and even the age structure of the population."
Yes, testing rates affect the numbers, but UK is not that much lower than USA in tests per million, yet USA have a far higher positive per test.
Germany on other hand, as with most of Europe, are finding more cases per million population than USA
Sally Vix wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
Do you not actually realize what an a$$hole you are? First of all, you don't know exactly what Jesse's job duties entail, and secondly, anyone who cares for elderly people, especially if they have to regularly clean someone's backside, is a godsend. Seriously, you make fun of someone's profession who is providing more to society than anything you do? You are an idiot a$$hole.
You and Jesse have insulted me and Rigged forever now. I pretty much have never responded because I am above that. Rigged has Never lowered himself to your perpetual cesspool. If you pansies can't handle it, then act like mature adults instead of little childish pansies. Grow up, put your big boy pants, and you can sit at the big boy table. Otherwise, remain at the little turd table. Your choice.
I didn't say I couldn't handle it, you idiot a$$hole. I just asked you if you really didn't know what an a$$hole you are. You are a moron, your comments are always wrong, you are offensive and never above anything. You have a long history of saying stuff like you just did to Jesse, so you deserve every comment you get as a result. You are not equipped to have discussions here as you don't understand anything. You truly are the dumbest person I have ever encountered. It is shocking how stupid you are.
Have to ask................. wrote:
P,
And this not sarcastic, even though some will jump on it as so.
Does your analysis or model include a point at which your exponential growth begins to decline? Meaning is there enough information available currently to include that in your model?
If not, and this is what will sound sarcastic, however it's meant more to illustrate a point,... at your rate of growth how many days out before we run out of people in the US to get the virus?
Thanks for the intelligent question (as always).
I actually answered this one in a roundabout way way back when, in response to your earlier question. I laid out a few scenarios for the "Agip Coefficient" (very respectfully, agip - it is a VERY important point you have emphasized). I also laid out a few USA response scenarios to show how many would be likely to die, how much better an early, strong response was than a later, trickling out response, etc. In those posts I showed when the peaks would likely happen, how bad the peaks would be, etc. Implicit in all of that is the notion that this thing can not grow at an exponential rate forever and that a peak would come when running out of new victims would automatically shut this thing down.
All that said, I will try to answer your most recent questions.
1) "Does your analysis or model include a point at which your exponential growth begins to decline? Meaning is there enough information available currently to include that in your model? "
In a mathematical sense the exponential growth begins to decline pretty much the moment it starts. In a more common language sense the decline will not be very noticeable for some time. A virus needs two things to spread - a current host and a future host. In simplified terms the rate of new infections is proportional to the number of individuals who are currently contagious multiplied by the number of individuals are are currently susceptible to infection.
Let x be the number of individuals who are currently contagious. Let C[x] be the cumulative total of all such infections, current and previously resolved. Let N be the total population in question (for the US, N = 330,000,000). At any time the potential for new infections is a function of x and (N-C[x]). It is not quite as simple as this, but to keep this post simple it is useful to think of the rate of new infections as being some constant (R) times x times (N-C[x]). Or dx/dt = R (x) (N-C[x]). Here
dx/dt =. rate of new infections
R = a constant (depends on lots of things and is not really a constant but good enough for this discussion)
x = the number of individuals who are currently contagious
N = the total number of individuals in the population
C[x] = the number of individuals who now have or previously had the disease and are therefore not candidates for infection at this time.
So, since C[x] is greater than zero as soon as you have the first infection, (N - C[x]) will be immediately and continually declining. That results in the curve dropping off of a pure exponential growth form immediately. On the other hand, (N - C[x]) is essentially the same thing as N itself until C[x] becomes a significant fraction of N. So, until C[x] is "a significant fraction" of 330,000,000 you won't really notice the effect of "running out of potential new victims". It is up to the reader to determine what "a significant fraction" is. Right now we are at about 85,000 reported cases in the US. Assuming an Agip Coefficient of 5 (pure assumption) would mean that C[x] is actually 5*85,000 = 425,000. Then C[x]/N = 425,000/330,000,000 = 0.0013. It's not nothing but it's not really noticeable among all the other noise.
2) "If not, and this is what will sound sarcastic, however it's meant more to illustrate a point,... at your rate of growth how many days out before we run out of people in the US to get the virus?"
While I understand the point you are trying to make, the premise of your "if not" question is false. C[x] is built into the model so my model's numbers have never been on a strictly exponential curve. They are off the pure exponential curve by 0.0013 even as we speak. :-)
On a related note, the success of the virus itself dooms the spread of the virus on a large scale at the point when each contagious person infects less than one new person. For COVID-19, the estimates of the number of new infections per infected person in a "virgin population" have ranged from around 1.6 to 2.5. If we use 2.0 as a reasonable guesstimate then the point at which fewer than one new person will get infected for each current infection (the point when current infections will begin to decline) will come when C[x] = 0.5N. For the US, that means that the number of current infections will begin to decline when C[x] = 165,000,000 or (still using an Agip Coefficient of 5) the cumulative number of reported cases reaches 165,000,000/5 = 33,000,000.
Long answer, and necessarily simplified. But I'm hoping it is enough to somewhat address your question.
Partisanship aside, this crisis just looks way too big for Trump to handle.
He looks scared, very scared in the moments when he’s not bluffing for the cameras.
Ciro wrote:
Partisanship aside, this crisis just looks way too big for Trump to handle.
He looks scared, very scared in the moments when he’s not bluffing for the cameras.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-arrives-for-a-briefing-on-the-news-photo/1208287364?adppopup=true
In all fairness Joe Biden doesn’t seem up to the task either.
He looked good last time I saw him in the debate with Sanders but we shall see.
P wrote:
Have to ask................. wrote:
P,
And this not sarcastic, even though some will jump on it as so.
Does your analysis or model include a point at which your exponential growth begins to decline? Meaning is there enough information available currently to include that in your model?
If not, and this is what will sound sarcastic, however it's meant more to illustrate a point,... at your rate of growth how many days out before we run out of people in the US to get the virus?
Thanks for the intelligent question (as always).
I actually answered this one in a roundabout way way back when, in response to your earlier question. I laid out a few scenarios for the "Agip Coefficient" (very respectfully, agip - it is a VERY important point you have emphasized). I also laid out a few USA response scenarios to show how many would be likely to die, how much better an early, strong response was than a later, trickling out response, etc. In those posts I showed when the peaks would likely happen, how bad the peaks would be, etc. Implicit in all of that is the notion that this thing can not grow at an exponential rate forever and that a peak would come when running out of new victims would automatically shut this thing down.
All that said, I will try to answer your most recent questions.
1) "Does your analysis or model include a point at which your exponential growth begins to decline? Meaning is there enough information available currently to include that in your model? "
In a mathematical sense the exponential growth begins to decline pretty much the moment it starts. In a more common language sense the decline will not be very noticeable for some time. A virus needs two things to spread - a current host and a future host. In simplified terms the rate of new infections is proportional to the number of individuals who are currently contagious multiplied by the number of individuals are are currently susceptible to infection.
Let x be the number of individuals who are currently contagious. Let C[x] be the cumulative total of all such infections, current and previously resolved. Let N be the total population in question (for the US, N = 330,000,000). At any time the potential for new infections is a function of x and (N-C[x]). It is not quite as simple as this, but to keep this post simple it is useful to think of the rate of new infections as being some constant (R) times x times (N-C[x]). Or dx/dt = R (x) (N-C[x]). Here
dx/dt =. rate of new infections
R = a constant (depends on lots of things and is not really a constant but good enough for this discussion)
x = the number of individuals who are currently contagious
N = the total number of individuals in the population
C[x] = the number of individuals who now have or previously had the disease and are therefore not candidates for infection at this time.
So, since C[x] is greater than zero as soon as you have the first infection, (N - C[x]) will be immediately and continually declining. That results in the curve dropping off of a pure exponential growth form immediately. On the other hand, (N - C[x]) is essentially the same thing as N itself until C[x] becomes a significant fraction of N. So, until C[x] is "a significant fraction" of 330,000,000 you won't really notice the effect of "running out of potential new victims". It is up to the reader to determine what "a significant fraction" is. Right now we are at about 85,000 reported cases in the US. Assuming an Agip Coefficient of 5 (pure assumption) would mean that C[x] is actually 5*85,000 = 425,000. Then C[x]/N = 425,000/330,000,000 = 0.0013. It's not nothing but it's not really noticeable among all the other noise.
2) "If not, and this is what will sound sarcastic, however it's meant more to illustrate a point,... at your rate of growth how many days out before we run out of people in the US to get the virus?"
While I understand the point you are trying to make, the premise of your "if not" question is false. C[x] is built into the model so my model's numbers have never been on a strictly exponential curve. They are off the pure exponential curve by 0.0013 even as we speak. :-)
On a related note, the success of the virus itself dooms the spread of the virus on a large scale at the point when each contagious person infects less than one new person. For COVID-19, the estimates of the number of new infections per infected person in a "virgin population" have ranged from around 1.6 to 2.5. If we use 2.0 as a reasonable guesstimate then the point at which fewer than one new person will get infected for each current infection (the point when current infections will begin to decline) will come when C[x] = 0.5N. For the US, that means that the number of current infections will begin to decline when C[x] = 165,000,000 or (still using an Agip Coefficient of 5) the cumulative number of reported cases reaches 165,000,000/5 = 33,000,000.
Long answer, and necessarily simplified. But I'm hoping it is enough to somewhat address your question.
I might suggest that you guys email each other rather than bury a message board with your private penchant for mathematics. Or maybe summarise what you think - in English.
Your models are all very well but presume a predictability in biology that can't be guaranteed - viruses aren't mathematical entities - and figures for rates of infection that are inexact because testing has been limited - there are many in the population likely to have the virus that we - and they - don't know about. This certainly applies in different countries, where testing protocols vary considerably. The best you can offer is approximation with such limited data we have to produce an educated guess - like the epidemiologists are doing. You aren't an epidemiologist so it's not even an educated guess. You're playing with numbers.
Trollminator wrote:
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1242935820757204992?s=21Ciro wrote:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/26/1931529/-White-nationalist-planned-to-bomb-a-Missouri-hospital-as-revolt-against-coronavirus-lockdownsDomestic far right terrorists.
One less hateful Trump supporter. Good riddance.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The USA has tested more people in 7 days than S.Korea has in 8 weeks. More tests lead to higher case totals which result in a higher death count. However, this gives us a lower mortality rate which gets lower with every test.
As usual, Rigged is lying. This time he is lying with statistics. In terms of total tests, South Korea has done far fewer than the US per population.
Based on the available data and the population of each country, 1 in 142 South Koreans and 1 in every 786 Americans have been tested for the coronavirus.
We are still WAAAAY behind South Korea.
Here is the truth: The moron in chief fired the pandemic response team. We wasted weeks and weeks not testing people when we could have been using those tests to find out where the virus is and where we should take action.
Trollminator wrote:
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1242935820757204992?s=21
This is hilarious.
Tiny tells his lawyers to send cease and desist letters about this ad. The letters will have two effects:
1) The letters will be thrown in the garbage. Anyone with a grain of sense knows that the lawyers are blowing smoke.
2) The ad will become a lot more popular from all the publicity.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!