When is the Covid war over?

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:57:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:45:11 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better. Stating
figures about deaths from other causes misses the point entirely; they
are known causes, understood, and changes in the death rate - whether
up, down, or constant, is explicable, linear, and usually minor.

One other point is misunderstood. We talk about treatment by intensive
care and use of ventilators. The problem is those are finite sources,
maybe increasing slightly as time goes on, but the exponential growth of
coronavirus infections will drown those increases. If there are 10000
ventilators today, and 20000 next week, it won't help much if there are
10000 cases of Covid-19 today and 100000 next week.

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

100 billion's manageable. In newsmath, those could still be funded
(a million dollars each) from Mike Bloomberg's campaign spending.

The problem happens a month later, when there'll be 8,128.5494322736
times as many cases. California's brilliant governor will need to
find another 19,543 hospital beds.

Cheers,
James

 

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:29:55 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 06:49:41 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 3:44:03 PM UTC-4, Harry D wrote:

Trump is mainly concerned about reducing a possible humongous deficit that is on course to break $4T. FY20 budget was on course to break $1T as it was, then the $2T recovery package is pure deficit, bringing the total to $3T. Since the FY is only at the 50% mark, a loss of $1T in tax revenue by year end is very likely an underestimate given the looks of the economy. That totals to $4T. The morons are heading for default.

Anybody who can print money will never default.

Venezuela.
Zimbabwe.
Argentina...

Cheers,
James

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 10:18:51 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:57:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:45:11 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better. Stating
figures about deaths from other causes misses the point entirely; they
are known causes, understood, and changes in the death rate - whether
up, down, or constant, is explicable, linear, and usually minor.

One other point is misunderstood. We talk about treatment by intensive
care and use of ventilators. The problem is those are finite sources,
maybe increasing slightly as time goes on, but the exponential growth of
coronavirus infections will drown those increases. If there are 10000
ventilators today, and 20000 next week, it won't help much if there are
10000 cases of Covid-19 today and 100000 next week.

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

100 billion's manageable. In newsmath, those could still be funded
(a million dollars each) from Mike Bloomberg's campaign spending.

The problem happens a month later, when there'll be 8,128.5494322736
times as many cases. California's brilliant governor will need to
find another 19,543 hospital beds.

Cheers,
James

I'm mostly through re-reading Barry's influenza book. The 1918
influenza was immensely worse than this thing. Over 4000 people died
per day in Philadelphia. Europeans seemed to have some immunity, and
some native villages and islands were wiped out entirely; no
survivors.

In any locality, the time from first case to burnout was about 6
weeks, more like 4 weeks at crowded army bases. It grew as a
bell-shaped curve with the tail chopped off, exponential start and a
very abrupt end.

I can, maybe optimistically, imagine that sort of curve in the data
from a lot of countries now. Initial fast growth but now flat or
declining.

Yeah, that's what happens when action is taken to limit the spread of a disease. The trouble is what happens during that time. If quick action is taken the infection is limited and many lives spared. When ineffective measures are taken the infection is widespread and many more lives lost not to mention the devastation of the medical system.

But that's ok. It's getting warmer here, I'm sure it will fade away very soon. “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” I just realized Trump said that just three days after Nancy Messonnier said it was just a matter of time. I didn't realize she was talking about the disease disappearing rather than getting bad.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:21:47 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 28/3/20 7:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James
Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be
have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory
disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better.

Economists and politicians spend their entire lives managing and
worrying about systems that are mostly linear (or very low-order
polynomial). They have massive cognitive biases against any system being
driven by fundamentally non-linear behaviour - they just can't really
conceive of it.

It makes their neat mathematical models useless, but monetarist are the only group to reject reality in favour of a mathematically tractable model.

Keynes accepted non-linearity back in the 1930's, and neo-Keynsianism is the most widely accpeted theory around today.


I believe that Pres. Trump recognized the threat of COVID early on, which is why he shut down travel to and from China at the major risk of being called a racist.

Not exactly right. He exploited it to justify a racist travel ban. He did absolutely squat about preparing the US to deal with the problem when infected people from other countries reached the US.

He has taken bold actions proportional to the threat, including invoking the Defense Production Act. He is open to any reasonable idea on how to deal with this crisis.

He was eventually forced to take the situation seriously, but the fact that the first US test kits distributed to test for the virus didn't work does suggest a certain lack of comprehension.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

What that suggested is that the CDC FUCKED UP! You know, the experts you libtards keep saying that Pres Trump should listen to.

 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:57:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:45:11 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better. Stating
figures about deaths from other causes misses the point entirely; they
are known causes, understood, and changes in the death rate - whether
up, down, or constant, is explicable, linear, and usually minor.

One other point is misunderstood. We talk about treatment by intensive
care and use of ventilators. The problem is those are finite sources,
maybe increasing slightly as time goes on, but the exponential growth of
coronavirus infections will drown those increases. If there are 10000
ventilators today, and 20000 next week, it won't help much if there are
10000 cases of Covid-19 today and 100000 next week.

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

100 billion's manageable. In newsmath, those could still be funded
(a million dollars each) from Mike Bloomberg's campaign spending.

The problem happens a month later, when there'll be 8,128.5494322736
times as many cases. California's brilliant governor will need to
find another 19,543 hospital beds.

Cheers,
James

I'm mostly through re-reading Barry's influenza book. The 1918
influenza was immensely worse than this thing. Over 4000 people died
per day in Philadelphia. Europeans seemed to have some immunity, and
some native villages and islands were wiped out entirely; no
survivors.

In any locality, the time from first case to burnout was about 6
weeks, more like 4 weeks at crowded army bases. It grew as a
bell-shaped curve with the tail chopped off, exponential start and a
very abrupt end.

I can, maybe optimistically, imagine that sort of curve in the data
from a lot of countries now. Initial fast growth but now flat or
declining.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 10:48:21 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:31:45 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 9:21:47 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 28/3/20 7:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James
Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be
have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory
disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better.

Economists and politicians spend their entire lives managing and
worrying about systems that are mostly linear (or very low-order
polynomial). They have massive cognitive biases against any system being
driven by fundamentally non-linear behaviour - they just can't really
conceive of it.

CH

I believe that Pres. Trump recognized the threat of COVID early on, which is why he shut down travel to and from China at the major risk of being called a racist. He has taken bold actions proportional to the threat, including invoking the Defense Production Act. He is open to any reasonable idea on how to deal with this crisis.

If Trump recognized the threat why didn't he do anything useful? People keep citing that one act which mostly was done to appeal to the xenophobes in his base group of supporters. There was no risk in him being called a racist. He's been called that many times because of his actions. Many of his supporters love it.

What the fuck else has he done usefully? Why do you believe he "understood" the threat??? Oh, was it when he said,

“We have it totally under control.”

“It will all work out well.”

“We think we have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five."

"...as the weather starts to warm & the virus hopefully becomes weaker, and then gone.”

“I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine.”

“We have a very small number of people in the country, right now, with it. It’s like around 12. Many of them are getting better. Some are fully recovered already. So we’re in very good shape.”

“I think it’s going to work out fine. I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effect on that and that type of a virus. So let’s see what happens, but I think it’s going to work out fine.”

“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”

“Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low. … When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero. That’s a pretty good job we’ve done."

"No, because we’re ready for it. It is what it is. We’re ready for it. We’re really prepared. ... We hope it doesn’t spread. There’s a chance that it won’t spread"

“Only a very small number in U.S., & China numbers look to be going down."

“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

“We did an interview on Fox last night, a town hall. I think it was very good. And I said, ‘Calm. You have to be calm. It’ll go away.' ”

“It came out of China, and we heard about it. And made a good move: We closed it down; we stopped it."

“So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”

“As you know, it’s about 600 cases, it’s about 26 deaths, within our country. And had we not acted quickly, that number would have been substantially more.”

“And it hit the world. And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”

Says Food and Drug Administration “will bring, additionally, 1.4 million tests on board next week and 5 million within a month. I doubt we’ll need anywhere near that.”

“This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”

“If you’re talking about the virus, no, that’s not under control for any place in the world. ... I was talking about what we’re doing is under control, but I’m not talking about the virus.”

I'm sure you haven't read all of these quotes. They are most of the posts quoted at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/12/trump-coronavirus-timeline/

But it only goes up to March 17. He continues to make statements that show how out of touch he is and how focused he is on things other than the health and well being of this nation. All while the infection rate and death rate climb higher and higher. We are now headed for twice the number of infected and dead than China, a country with some four times our population. While China is ready to open up some of the lock down areas we are just now headed for quarantines on entire cities.

Trump has botched this so badly, I don't think the family Labrador would have done a worse job.


Pres Trump DID do something VERY useful, VERY earlier: he stopped all travel to and from China. And he did it knowing that libtards such as yourself would call him a racist in the middle of a Presidential campaign. That's pure guts. Had he not done this we could have had a situation much like the 1918 Flu.

It wasn't all that useful because as Bill has pointed out to you several times, he didn't STOP all travel to and from China. So you are lying and you know you are lying. So stop lying.

~~~~~~~~~~~
“We don’t have a travel ban,” Klain said. “We have a travel Band-Aid right now. First, before it was imposed, 300,000 people came here from China in the previous month. So, the horse is out of the barn.”

“There’s no restriction on Americans going back and forth,” Klain said. “There are warnings. People should abide by those warnings. But today, 30 planes will land in Los Angeles that either originated in Beijing or came here on one-stops, 30 in San Francisco, 25 in New York City. Okay?
~~~~~~~~~~~

The only thing the travel restriction did was to buy a week or so of time from a smaller innoculation. Then he did NOTHING with that precious time. He didn't invoke the DPA to make PPE and ventilators. He didn't tell anyone to take measures to prevent the spread. He told the US, "‘Calm. You have to be calm. It’ll go away.'” --- “It came out of China, and we heard about it. And made a good move: We closed it down; we stopped it."

Of course he made many other idiotic statements instead of DOING ANYTHING once he restricted travel. He had to wait for the numbers to rise dramatically ignoring his own people telling him "it is just a matter of time".

No, the warmer April is not going to save us. Isolation may if we maintain it.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 30/3/20 1:18 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:57:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:45:11 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better. Stating
figures about deaths from other causes misses the point entirely; they
are known causes, understood, and changes in the death rate - whether
up, down, or constant, is explicable, linear, and usually minor.

One other point is misunderstood. We talk about treatment by intensive
care and use of ventilators. The problem is those are finite sources,
maybe increasing slightly as time goes on, but the exponential growth of
coronavirus infections will drown those increases. If there are 10000
ventilators today, and 20000 next week, it won't help much if there are
10000 cases of Covid-19 today and 100000 next week.

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

100 billion's manageable. In newsmath, those could still be funded
(a million dollars each) from Mike Bloomberg's campaign spending.

The problem happens a month later, when there'll be 8,128.5494322736
times as many cases. California's brilliant governor will need to
find another 19,543 hospital beds.

Cheers,
James

I'm mostly through re-reading Barry's influenza book. The 1918
influenza was immensely worse than this thing. Over 4000 people died
per day in Philadelphia. Europeans seemed to have some immunity, and
some native villages and islands were wiped out entirely; no
survivors.

In any locality, the time from first case to burnout was about 6
weeks, more like 4 weeks at crowded army bases. It grew as a
bell-shaped curve with the tail chopped off, exponential start and a
very abrupt end.

I can, maybe optimistically, imagine that sort of curve in the data
from a lot of countries now. Initial fast growth but now flat or
declining.

There's an exceptionally good presentation of the reasons for the
Australian approach, by someone who "gets" both the biology and the
maths, here:

<https://iser.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/busting-myths-about-covid-19-herd-immunity-children-and-lives-vs-jobs>

Unfortunately the USA has probably squandered the opportunity to take
this approach, so will have to be shunned by the rest of the world for
years while a million or more die in repeated cyclic outbreaks, until an
effective vaccine controls the outbreak. It's a catastrophic failure of
governance.

CH

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 1:45:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 7:12:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:33:01 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 6:03:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 6:35:50 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 11:36:41 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 16:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

And 5 weeks previously there would be 0.1 of a case, and the week before
that 0.01 of a case, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

You do realize you won't make any difference in what he says, right? It's not like he is an unknown quantity around here.

Infection rates (cases ppm) vary widely from state-to-state. The lowest rate (Nebraska) is 52 times less than NY. Thus, imposing (and relaxing) lockdown edicts need to be made, not only on a state-by-state, but also a county-by-county basis.

Flyguy is too stupid to realise that the infection rate is merely the progress variable.

What matters is R0 - the number of people each newly infected person manages to infect before they become symptomatic and get whisked off into isolation.

If you aren't practicing some kind of isolation, that number is between 2.5 and 3 on average - go to a big family party and you can infect a lot more people.

If your area has got any infected people, it needs to be in lock-down.

The number of COVID cases in the US grew by 24% in just the last 24 hr (93,000 to 115,334). This was expected as testing became more widely available. The biggest jump was NJ, where the number jumped by 62%.

It was also expected because this is fairly infectious disease. If you aren't doing anything to slow down person to person infection, the number of people infected goes up rapidly, whether or not you are testing them.

Enough of them get seriously ill with viral pneumonia that you'll notice even if you are short of test kits.

You, apparently, are TOO STUPID to understand what I calculated. It is EXACTLY your R0: a higher infection rate means that each infected person is infecting MORE people than a state with a lower rate.

Wrong. The stupidity is all yours. The infection rate - number of people infected per 100,000 or million - reflects both the R0 and the length of time that the virus has been spreading in a state.

The R0 tends to be pretty stable until you start contact tracing or social distancing. The date of the first infection in a state has a much bigger effect on the proportion of people infected - until the authorities get serious about dealing with it.

And the data gives you a better idea of which states are doing a better job (NE) and which ones are doing a horrible job (NY, NJ, LA).

New York and New Jersey got exposed to a lot of infected international travelers early.

Louisiana seems to have imported a lot of infected people for Mardi Gras and given them every chance to infect everybody else - the R0 in a densely packed crowd can be well above three.

New England is rather less visited.

Like I said, the stupidity is all yours, and you do go out of your way to remind us how terminally stupid you are.

This is all rolled into the infection rate. There is no reliable way of estimating R0 - it is just influenced by too many variables. My aggregate infection rate does this, but you are too stupid to realize it.

You ignore the fact that your "infection rate" is a function both of R0 - how many people an infected person is likely to infect - and the number of infected people out there infecting other people.

As I said, the stupidity is all yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 7:12:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:33:01 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 6:03:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 6:35:50 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 11:36:41 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 16:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

And 5 weeks previously there would be 0.1 of a case, and the week before
that 0.01 of a case, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

You do realize you won't make any difference in what he says, right? It's not like he is an unknown quantity around here.

Infection rates (cases ppm) vary widely from state-to-state. The lowest rate (Nebraska) is 52 times less than NY. Thus, imposing (and relaxing) lockdown edicts need to be made, not only on a state-by-state, but also a county-by-county basis.

Flyguy is too stupid to realise that the infection rate is merely the progress variable.

What matters is R0 - the number of people each newly infected person manages to infect before they become symptomatic and get whisked off into isolation.

If you aren't practicing some kind of isolation, that number is between 2.5 and 3 on average - go to a big family party and you can infect a lot more people.

If your area has got any infected people, it needs to be in lock-down.

The number of COVID cases in the US grew by 24% in just the last 24 hr (93,000 to 115,334). This was expected as testing became more widely available. The biggest jump was NJ, where the number jumped by 62%.

It was also expected because this is fairly infectious disease. If you aren't doing anything to slow down person to person infection, the number of people infected goes up rapidly, whether or not you are testing them.

Enough of them get seriously ill with viral pneumonia that you'll notice even if you are short of test kits.

You, apparently, are TOO STUPID to understand what I calculated. It is EXACTLY your R0: a higher infection rate means that each infected person is infecting MORE people than a state with a lower rate.

Wrong. The stupidity is all yours. The infection rate - number of people infected per 100,000 or million - reflects both the R0 and the length of time that the virus has been spreading in a state.

The R0 tends to be pretty stable until you start contact tracing or social distancing. The date of the first infection in a state has a much bigger effect on the proportion of people infected - until the authorities get serious about dealing with it.

And the data gives you a better idea of which states are doing a better job (NE) and which ones are doing a horrible job (NY, NJ, LA).

New York and New Jersey got exposed to a lot of infected international travelers early.

Louisiana seems to have imported a lot of infected people for Mardi Gras and given them every chance to infect everybody else - the R0 in a densely packed crowd can be well above three.

New England is rather less visited.

Like I said, the stupidity is all yours, and you do go out of your way to remind us how terminally stupid you are.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

This is all rolled into the infection rate. There is no reliable way of estimating R0 - it is just influenced by too many variables. My aggregate infection rate does this, but you are too stupid to realize it.

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 8:31:45 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 9:21:47 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 28/3/20 7:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James
Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be
have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory
disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better.

Economists and politicians spend their entire lives managing and
worrying about systems that are mostly linear (or very low-order
polynomial). They have massive cognitive biases against any system being
driven by fundamentally non-linear behaviour - they just can't really
conceive of it.

CH

I believe that Pres. Trump recognized the threat of COVID early on, which is why he shut down travel to and from China at the major risk of being called a racist. He has taken bold actions proportional to the threat, including invoking the Defense Production Act. He is open to any reasonable idea on how to deal with this crisis.

If Trump recognized the threat why didn't he do anything useful? People keep citing that one act which mostly was done to appeal to the xenophobes in his base group of supporters. There was no risk in him being called a racist. He's been called that many times because of his actions. Many of his supporters love it.

What the fuck else has he done usefully? Why do you believe he "understood" the threat??? Oh, was it when he said,

“We have it totally under control.”

“It will all work out well.”

“We think we have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five."

"...as the weather starts to warm & the virus hopefully becomes weaker, and then gone.”

“I think the virus is going to be — it’s going to be fine.”

“We have a very small number of people in the country, right now, with it. It’s like around 12. Many of them are getting better. Some are fully recovered already. So we’re in very good shape.”

“I think it’s going to work out fine. I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effect on that and that type of a virus. So let’s see what happens, but I think it’s going to work out fine.”

“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”

“Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low. … When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero. That’s a pretty good job we’ve done."

"No, because we’re ready for it. It is what it is. We’re ready for it. We’re really prepared. ... We hope it doesn’t spread. There’s a chance that it won’t spread"

“Only a very small number in U.S., & China numbers look to be going down."

“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

“We did an interview on Fox last night, a town hall. I think it was very good. And I said, ‘Calm. You have to be calm. It’ll go away.' ”

“It came out of China, and we heard about it. And made a good move: We closed it down; we stopped it."

“So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”

“As you know, it’s about 600 cases, it’s about 26 deaths, within our country. And had we not acted quickly, that number would have been substantially more.”

“And it hit the world. And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”

Says Food and Drug Administration “will bring, additionally, 1.4 million tests on board next week and 5 million within a month. I doubt we’ll need anywhere near that.”

“This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”

“If you’re talking about the virus, no, that’s not under control for any place in the world. ... I was talking about what we’re doing is under control, but I’m not talking about the virus.”

I'm sure you haven't read all of these quotes. They are most of the posts quoted at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/12/trump-coronavirus-timeline/

But it only goes up to March 17. He continues to make statements that show how out of touch he is and how focused he is on things other than the health and well being of this nation. All while the infection rate and death rate climb higher and higher. We are now headed for twice the number of infected and dead than China, a country with some four times our population. While China is ready to open up some of the lock down areas we are just now headed for quarantines on entire cities.

Trump has botched this so badly, I don't think the family Labrador would have done a worse job.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Pres Trump DID do something VERY useful, VERY earlier: he stopped all travel to and from China. And he did it knowing that libtards such as yourself would call him a racist in the middle of a Presidential campaign. That's pure guts. Had he not done this we could have had a situation much like the 1918 Flu.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 1:42:29 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:21:47 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 28/3/20 7:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James
Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be
have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory
disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better.

Economists and politicians spend their entire lives managing and
worrying about systems that are mostly linear (or very low-order
polynomial). They have massive cognitive biases against any system being
driven by fundamentally non-linear behaviour - they just can't really
conceive of it.

It makes their neat mathematical models useless, but monetarist are the only group to reject reality in favour of a mathematically tractable model..

Keynes accepted non-linearity back in the 1930's, and neo-Keynsianism is the most widely accpeted theory around today.


I believe that Pres. Trump recognized the threat of COVID early on, which is why he shut down travel to and from China at the major risk of being called a racist.

Not exactly right. He exploited it to justify a racist travel ban. He did absolutely squat about preparing the US to deal with the problem when infected people from other countries reached the US.

He has taken bold actions proportional to the threat, including invoking the Defense Production Act. He is open to any reasonable idea on how to deal with this crisis.

He was eventually forced to take the situation seriously, but the fact that the first US test kits distributed to test for the virus didn't work does suggest a certain lack of comprehension.

What that suggested is that the CDC FUCKED UP! You know, the experts you libtards keep saying that Pres Trump should listen to.

The CDC would have needed to spend money to get test kits.

Trump did try to cut funds to the CDC from the time he became president, but Congress wouldn't let him. If they'd approach Trump early on in the epidemic with a proposal to spend money on test kits that they didn't actually need at that point - the US didn't have many people who needed to be tested for Covid-19 at the time - you can imagine how successful they would have been.

Trump's administrative team hasn't been all that stable, and the people who have been willing to work with him, and have been able to keep on working with him have understood that they need to tell him what he wants to hear.

Spending money on medical test kits that they didn't actually need immediately wouldn't have been easy to sell.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 8:05:14 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 1:45:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 7:12:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:33:01 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 6:03:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 6:35:50 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 11:36:41 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 16:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

And 5 weeks previously there would be 0.1 of a case, and the week before
that 0.01 of a case, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

You do realize you won't make any difference in what he says, right? It's not like he is an unknown quantity around here.

Infection rates (cases ppm) vary widely from state-to-state. The lowest rate (Nebraska) is 52 times less than NY. Thus, imposing (and relaxing) lockdown edicts need to be made, not only on a state-by-state, but also a county-by-county basis.

Flyguy is too stupid to realise that the infection rate is merely the progress variable.

What matters is R0 - the number of people each newly infected person manages to infect before they become symptomatic and get whisked off into isolation.

If you aren't practicing some kind of isolation, that number is between 2.5 and 3 on average - go to a big family party and you can infect a lot more people.

If your area has got any infected people, it needs to be in lock-down.

The number of COVID cases in the US grew by 24% in just the last 24 hr (93,000 to 115,334). This was expected as testing became more widely available. The biggest jump was NJ, where the number jumped by 62%.

It was also expected because this is fairly infectious disease. If you aren't doing anything to slow down person to person infection, the number of people infected goes up rapidly, whether or not you are testing them.

Enough of them get seriously ill with viral pneumonia that you'll notice even if you are short of test kits.

You, apparently, are TOO STUPID to understand what I calculated. It is EXACTLY your R0: a higher infection rate means that each infected person is infecting MORE people than a state with a lower rate.

Wrong. The stupidity is all yours. The infection rate - number of people infected per 100,000 or million - reflects both the R0 and the length of time that the virus has been spreading in a state.

The R0 tends to be pretty stable until you start contact tracing or social distancing. The date of the first infection in a state has a much bigger effect on the proportion of people infected - until the authorities get serious about dealing with it.

And the data gives you a better idea of which states are doing a better job (NE) and which ones are doing a horrible job (NY, NJ, LA).

New York and New Jersey got exposed to a lot of infected international travelers early.

Louisiana seems to have imported a lot of infected people for Mardi Gras and given them every chance to infect everybody else - the R0 in a densely packed crowd can be well above three.

New England is rather less visited.

Like I said, the stupidity is all yours, and you do go out of your way to remind us how terminally stupid you are.

This is all rolled into the infection rate. There is no reliable way of estimating R0 - it is just influenced by too many variables. My aggregate infection rate does this, but you are too stupid to realize it.

You ignore the fact that your "infection rate" is a function both of R0 - how many people an infected person is likely to infect - and the number of infected people out there infecting other people.

As I said, the stupidity is all yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey stupid, there IS NO WAY to measure R0 - I repeat, there IS NO WAY to measure R0. It is ENTIRELY a theoretical concept. I measured the ACTUAL infection rate, which is pretty simple to do, but can't be understood by simpltons.

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 8:01:44 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 1:42:29 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 6:44:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:21:47 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 4:00:54 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 28/3/20 7:45 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James
Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be
have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory
disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better.

Economists and politicians spend their entire lives managing and
worrying about systems that are mostly linear (or very low-order
polynomial). They have massive cognitive biases against any system being
driven by fundamentally non-linear behaviour - they just can't really
conceive of it.

It makes their neat mathematical models useless, but monetarist are the only group to reject reality in favour of a mathematically tractable model.

Keynes accepted non-linearity back in the 1930's, and neo-Keynsianism is the most widely accpeted theory around today.


I believe that Pres. Trump recognized the threat of COVID early on, which is why he shut down travel to and from China at the major risk of being called a racist.

Not exactly right. He exploited it to justify a racist travel ban. He did absolutely squat about preparing the US to deal with the problem when infected people from other countries reached the US.

He has taken bold actions proportional to the threat, including invoking the Defense Production Act. He is open to any reasonable idea on how to deal with this crisis.

He was eventually forced to take the situation seriously, but the fact that the first US test kits distributed to test for the virus didn't work does suggest a certain lack of comprehension.

What that suggested is that the CDC FUCKED UP! You know, the experts you libtards keep saying that Pres Trump should listen to.

The CDC would have needed to spend money to get test kits.

Trump did try to cut funds to the CDC from the time he became president, but Congress wouldn't let him. If they'd approach Trump early on in the epidemic with a proposal to spend money on test kits that they didn't actually need at that point - the US didn't have many people who needed to be tested for Covid-19 at the time - you can imagine how successful they would have been.

Trump's administrative team hasn't been all that stable, and the people who have been willing to work with him, and have been able to keep on working with him have understood that they need to tell him what he wants to hear..

Spending money on medical test kits that they didn't actually need immediately wouldn't have been easy to sell.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Your "info" is all fucked up, as usual. You have just ADMITTED that his move to stop China travel was the key element in limiting the US exposure to the Chinese communist created disease.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 28/03/2020 02:41, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:27:07 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/03/20 22:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
About 2.8 million people die in the US every year. 216K of those are
considered to be upper respiratory or flu/pneumonia. C19 has
officially killed 1544 so far.

The key phrase there is "so far".


US dailies are down slightly from yesterday, but the data is so noisy
that it will take a week or a month to really spot a trend. Some
european countries seem to have peaked. Different countries, even
neighbors, have very different patterns. There must be a lot of bad
data going around.

The only European country that might perhaps be close to peaking is
Italy but their health system is now so close to collapse that they are
airlifting some critical patients to German hospitals for ICU.

UK is expected to peak in May or June if the social distancing measures
are effective. Death rate peaks about two weeks after the daily
infection count reaches its highest point (typical residence time in
ICU). Fatalities will be much higher if ICU capacity is inadequate.

One thing you really should be worried by is that the US growth curve is
running ahead of Italy at the corresponding position. This is rather
surprising given that we know the sorts of things you should not do.

http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn

Doubling time in the UK, Italy and Spain is presently 3 days. In the USA
it is 2 days and in Japan it is presently 8 days (though unclear how
much longer they can hold that line without taking further measures).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:40:47 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 8:05:14 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 1:45:58 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 7:12:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:33:01 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 6:03:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 6:35:50 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 11:36:41 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 28/03/20 16:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

And 5 weeks previously there would be 0.1 of a case, and the week before that 0.01 of a case, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

You do realize you won't make any difference in what he says, right? It's not like he is an unknown quantity around here.

Infection rates (cases ppm) vary widely from state-to-state. The lowest rate (Nebraska) is 52 times less than NY. Thus, imposing (and relaxing) lockdown edicts need to be made, not only on a state-by-state, but also a county-by-county basis.

Flyguy is too stupid to realise that the infection rate is merely the progress variable.

What matters is R0 - the number of people each newly infected person manages to infect before they become symptomatic and get whisked off into isolation.

If you aren't practicing some kind of isolation, that number is between 2.5 and 3 on average - go to a big family party and you can infect a lot more people.

If your area has got any infected people, it needs to be in lock-down.

The number of COVID cases in the US grew by 24% in just the last 24 hr (93,000 to 115,334). This was expected as testing became more widely available. The biggest jump was NJ, where the number jumped by 62%.

It was also expected because this is fairly infectious disease. If you aren't doing anything to slow down person to person infection, the number of people infected goes up rapidly, whether or not you are testing them.

Enough of them get seriously ill with viral pneumonia that you'll notice even if you are short of test kits.

You, apparently, are TOO STUPID to understand what I calculated. It is EXACTLY your R0: a higher infection rate means that each infected person is infecting MORE people than a state with a lower rate.

Wrong. The stupidity is all yours. The infection rate - number of people infected per 100,000 or million - reflects both the R0 and the length of time that the virus has been spreading in a state.

The R0 tends to be pretty stable until you start contact tracing or social distancing. The date of the first infection in a state has a much bigger effect on the proportion of people infected - until the authorities get serious about dealing with it.

And the data gives you a better idea of which states are doing a better job (NE) and which ones are doing a horrible job (NY, NJ, LA).

New York and New Jersey got exposed to a lot of infected international travelers early.

Louisiana seems to have imported a lot of infected people for Mardi Gras and given them every chance to infect everybody else - the R0 in a densely packed crowd can be well above three.

New England is rather less visited.

Like I said, the stupidity is all yours, and you do go out of your way to remind us how terminally stupid you are.

This is all rolled into the infection rate. There is no reliable way of estimating R0 - it is just influenced by too many variables. My aggregate infection rate does this, but you are too stupid to realize it.

You ignore the fact that your "infection rate" is a function both of R0 - how many people an infected person is likely to infect - and the number of infected people out there infecting other people.

As I said, the stupidity is all yours.

Hey stupid, there IS NO WAY to measure R0 - I repeat, there IS NO WAY to measure R0. It is ENTIRELY a theoretical concept. I measured the ACTUAL infection rate, which is pretty simple to do, but can't be understood by simpltons.

Flyguy can't even spell "simpletons", and thinks he isn't one.

R0 is a theoretical construct used in the numerical modelling of the spread of infectious diseases. It the average number of new infections generated by one infectious person before they get put into isolation (where they can infect anybody else. You can measure the actual numbers for a lot of individuals if you go in for rigorous contact tracing.

The number of new cases of infection you see every day depends both on the number of infectious people who were circulating in the community back when people you are counting now got infected, and the number of people each of those infectious persons managed to infect.

Your infection rate - number of infected people per million of the population - mainly tells you how long it is since the first infected person started infecting other people in the area you are looking at, at least until you start getting people not to infect other people (which doesn't seem to be happening yet anywhere in the US).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

https://www.jsatonotes.com/2020/03/if-i-were-north-americaneuropeanaustral.html

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/26/world/asia/26reuters-health-coronavirus-australia-vaccine.html

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 11:35:33 PM UTC+11, plastco...@gmail.com wrote:

https://www.jsatonotes.com/2020/03/if-i-were-north-americaneuropeanaustral.html

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/26/world/asia/26reuters-health-coronavirus-australia-vaccine.html

That's nice. I got it when I was eighteen, and TB was still prevalent in Australia - my younger brother had tested positive for it a year earlier.

The sports master at our school - a nice guy with a very interesting history - who had taught me German a few years earlier - had had his dormant infection turn active and infected several kids before it got noticed.

I doubt that a 60-year-old injection will be doing me much good now, but it might be.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:43:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/2020 02:41, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:27:07 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/03/20 22:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
About 2.8 million people die in the US every year. 216K of those are
considered to be upper respiratory or flu/pneumonia. C19 has
officially killed 1544 so far.

The key phrase there is "so far".


US dailies are down slightly from yesterday, but the data is so noisy
that it will take a week or a month to really spot a trend. Some
european countries seem to have peaked. Different countries, even
neighbors, have very different patterns. There must be a lot of bad
data going around.

The only European country that might perhaps be close to peaking is
Italy but their health system is now so close to collapse that they are
airlifting some critical patients to German hospitals for ICU.

UK is expected to peak in May or June if the social distancing measures
are effective. Death rate peaks about two weeks after the daily
infection count reaches its highest point (typical residence time in
ICU). Fatalities will be much higher if ICU capacity is inadequate.

One thing you really should be worried by is that the US growth curve is
running ahead of Italy at the corresponding position. This is rather
surprising given that we know the sorts of things you should not do.

http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn

That's the integral of cases, but the slopes are all declining.

Doubling time in the UK, Italy and Spain is presently 3 days. In the USA
it is 2 days and in Japan it is presently 8 days (though unclear how
much longer they can hold that line without taking further measures).

This site

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

has good graphs, but is's getting too popular/slow lately.

Italy new-case count is 8 days past peak. Spain has dropped 5 days in
a row. UK peaked on the 26th. The US peaked on the 27th. Most
countries are down by several days from peak. I hope this isn't just
lazy weekend data collection. And I hope that testing density has
actually increased the numbers.

I think I'm seeing bell-shaped bumps about a month wide, near or past
peaks now. I hope that's real and continues.

A couple of sources suggest world total new cases peaked a couple of
days ago. But it's certainly not growing exponentially any more.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#daily-cases

A world-total bell-bump will of course be broader and somewhat later
than the earlier spikes.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:00:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-03-29 22:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:57:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:45:11 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better. Stating
figures about deaths from other causes misses the point entirely; they
are known causes, understood, and changes in the death rate - whether
up, down, or constant, is explicable, linear, and usually minor.

One other point is misunderstood. We talk about treatment by intensive
care and use of ventilators. The problem is those are finite sources,
maybe increasing slightly as time goes on, but the exponential growth of
coronavirus infections will drown those increases. If there are 10000
ventilators today, and 20000 next week, it won't help much if there are
10000 cases of Covid-19 today and 100000 next week.

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

100 billion's manageable. In newsmath, those could still be funded
(a million dollars each) from Mike Bloomberg's campaign spending.

The problem happens a month later, when there'll be 8,128.5494322736
times as many cases. California's brilliant governor will need to
find another 19,543 hospital beds.

Cheers,
James

I'm mostly through re-reading Barry's influenza book. The 1918
influenza was immensely worse than this thing. Over 4000 people died
per day in Philadelphia. Europeans seemed to have some immunity, and
some native villages and islands were wiped out entirely; no
survivors.

In any locality, the time from first case to burnout was about 6
weeks, more like 4 weeks at crowded army bases. It grew as a
bell-shaped curve with the tail chopped off, exponential start and a
very abrupt end.

I can, maybe optimistically, imagine that sort of curve in the data
from a lot of countries now. Initial fast growth but now flat or
declining.




This one seems not unlike the first (spring) wave of 1918, which was
much milder than the autumn wave. Hopefully we don't have a repeat of
that!

Absolutely. The growth rate and death rate of even the first wave of
1918 was wildly above this one. It killed some people, horribly, in a
single day.

Barry's book is fascinating. It's as much about the culture of science
as it is about the flu. Lotta wrongness. The establishment was
convinced that the agent was a bacillus, so they mocked the lab skills
of anyone who didn't find their preferred critter in autopsy samples.

Many years later it was determined that it was a filterable virus.
Only a few brave men and women dared suggest that during the epidemic.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-03-29 22:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:57:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 08:45:11 +0000, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 28/03/20 03:00, Bill Sloman wrote:

But the Covid-19 death numbers are growing exponentially. If James Arthur's 1.24 increase per day persists for 23 days, there will be have been as many Civd-19 deaths in those 23 days as 216k respiratory disease deaths that the US has in a year.

I can understand the general public having little comprehension of what
"exponential" means, but I am surprised that it seems to have been
ignored or misunderstood by those who should know better. Stating
figures about deaths from other causes misses the point entirely; they
are known causes, understood, and changes in the death rate - whether
up, down, or constant, is explicable, linear, and usually minor.

One other point is misunderstood. We talk about treatment by intensive
care and use of ventilators. The problem is those are finite sources,
maybe increasing slightly as time goes on, but the exponential growth of
coronavirus infections will drown those increases. If there are 10000
ventilators today, and 20000 next week, it won't help much if there are
10000 cases of Covid-19 today and 100000 next week.

I understand exponential growth. There would be 1 million the
following week, then 10 million the next week, and 100 billion cases a
month after that. The US will hit 100 billion cases around the end of
April.

100 billion's manageable. In newsmath, those could still be funded
(a million dollars each) from Mike Bloomberg's campaign spending.

The problem happens a month later, when there'll be 8,128.5494322736
times as many cases. California's brilliant governor will need to
find another 19,543 hospital beds.

Cheers,
James

I'm mostly through re-reading Barry's influenza book. The 1918
influenza was immensely worse than this thing. Over 4000 people died
per day in Philadelphia. Europeans seemed to have some immunity, and
some native villages and islands were wiped out entirely; no
survivors.

In any locality, the time from first case to burnout was about 6
weeks, more like 4 weeks at crowded army bases. It grew as a
bell-shaped curve with the tail chopped off, exponential start and a
very abrupt end.

I can, maybe optimistically, imagine that sort of curve in the data
from a lot of countries now. Initial fast growth but now flat or
declining.

This one seems not unlike the first (spring) wave of 1918, which was
much milder than the autumn wave. Hopefully we don't have a repeat of
that!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com