This isn't a surprise. But this is what I would watch - what happens to those 20 and how soon does it happen. If 10/20 pass away with decent medical care then we are f'd. If all 20 recover than we are good - just keep tabs on them to see if they are more prone to getting sick easier, later on.

I've been kind of thinking mid to end of February is when we'll really start to see what's up in the US and other Western countries.

It would be nice to get an update on the condition of the earliest of the 12 current cases and the condition of those being monitored currently.

I'm with you. At this point I'm not even really looking at China.

This could be fun:

C@LAg said:

---

GE said:

---

Show me the derivation of that being 1.000 - I havent calculated it but that's not how it looks to me

---

Read his comment here:

look at the point graph, at the daily observations (the green line).

It has achieved a nearly perfect flat line (at 2.1%) for the last week.

Daily deviation is essentially 0, so the R^2 = 1.

---

First post in the thread. So tired of this r^2 talk. I deal with this stuff for a living and what is being said in this thread or that twitter feed is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst. I can't believe I am wasting time posting but I've got a lot of enjoyment reading both sides of this thread, so I feel like I owe it to take the time writing this out. Let's say we have the same set of data he is utilizing:
He is starting on day 12 with his equation, so
x //////////// y
12 /////// 4,515
13 /////// 5,974
14 /////// 7,711
15 /////// 9,692
16 /////// 11,791
17 /////// 14,380
18 /////// 17,205

Using just this data, I come up with the same equation (y = 134.83 * x^2 - 1,939 * x + 8,392.5) with an r^2 of 1.0.

Let's completely ignore the fact that he is ignoring the first 11 days of data (because he is) and ignore the fact the beginning of the curve is really what defines how the rest of the curve will behave (if you have the equation right, which he asserts that he does). Let's complete ignore reality (like many in this thread). Let me instead show you how this guy will literally always be correct.

The equation he just derived (and that we just re-created) would tell us that at x = 19, we should get y = ~20,221. Correct? Does anyone disagree with this?

However, what if it turns out that y = 20,100, instead? Well, the equation changes to y = 129.74 * x^2 - 1,791.5 * x + 7,337.8. Any guesses what the r^2 is? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? It is 1.0. r^2 = 1.0.

What if day 19 completely bucks the trend? Say it is only 18,000? The equation changes, but the r^2 is still very high at 0.992 (some could dishonestly round this to 1.0, if they had an agenda).

What if it goes the other way and on day 19, y = 23,000? The equation changes, again, but the r^2 is still 0.992.

More than likely though, when x=19, y is going to equal something in between 19,500-21,000. In which case, this guy's equation is going to change, but his r^2 is still going to be 1.0.

Hopefully I explained this well enough and everyone can follow along; sorry, it has been a long day. Let me know if you have any questions. I can also provide some trend plots in the morning if you think it'd help.

Quote:

---

majority eight are men. All are adults: Four are in their 20s or their 30s, one is over 40 and six are in their 50s or their 60s.

Nine of the 11 had traveled to China; the two others caught the virus from a spouse in the U.S. According to the CDC, all 11 appear to be doing well, including two in San Benito, California, who previously needed more intensive care.

---

It appears that all of the currently identified cases in the US are doing ok.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1130971

Crystal Blue Meth said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

GE said:

---

Show me the derivation of that being 1.000 - I havent calculated it but that's not how it looks to me

---

Read his comment here:

look at the point graph, at the daily observations (the green line).

It has achieved a nearly perfect flat line (at 2.1%) for the last week.

Daily deviation is essentially 0, so the R^2 = 1.

---

First post in the thread. So tired of this r^2 talk. I deal with this stuff for a living and what is being said in this thread or that twitter feed is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst. I can't believe I am wasting time posting but I've got a lot of enjoyment reading both sides of this thread, so I feel like I owe it to take the time writing this out. Let's say we have the same set of data he is utilizing:
He is starting on day 12 with his equation, so
x //////////// y
12 /////// 4,515
13 /////// 5,974
14 /////// 7,711
15 /////// 9,692
16 /////// 11,791
17 /////// 14,380
18 /////// 17,205

Using just this data, I come up with the same equation (y = 134.83 * x^2 - 1,939 * x + 8,392.5) with an r^2 of 1.0.

Let's completely ignore the fact that he is ignoring the first 11 days of data (because he is) and ignore the fact the beginning of the curve is really what defines how the rest of the curve will behave (if you have the equation right, which he asserts that he does). Let's complete ignore reality (like many in this thread). Let me instead show you how this guy will literally always be correct.

The equation he just derived (and that we just re-created) would tell us that at x = 19, we should get y = ~20,221. Correct? Does anyone disagree with this?

However, what if it turns out that y = 2,100, instead? Well, the equation changes to y = 129.74 * x^2 - 1,791.5 * x + 7,337.8. Any guesses what the r^2 is? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? It is 1.0. r^2 = 1.0.

What if day 19 completely bucks the trend? Say it is only 18,000? The equation changes, but the r^2 is still very high at 0.992 (some could dishonestly round this to 1.0, if they had an agenda).

What if it goes the other way and on day 19, y = 23,000? The equation changes, again, but the r^2 is still 0.992.

More than likely though, when x=19, y is going to equal something in between 19,500-21,000. In which case, this guy's equation is going to change, but his r^2 is still going to be 1.0.

Hopefully I explained this well enough and everyone can follow along; sorry, it has been a long day. Let me know if you have any questions. I can also provide some trend plots in the morning if you think it'd help.

---

sir this is a wendys

Of course if you best fit you can *always* find a polynomial of sufficient order to get you an r^2 of 1.

I understood he was using the same formula day to day, and getting the right result. That's meaningful. Coming up with a new formula each day isnt.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Of course if you best fit you can *always* find a polynomial of sufficient order to get you an r^2 of 1.

---

CBM's formulas are all order 2, though.

Essentially, we have too few data points (especially if you abritrarily exclude the first 11 days) to distinguish between real and fabricated data on the basis of whether it fits a simple model. Then there's the obvious question of why would they use such a simple model, with no random variation, to generate the numbers.

Quote:

---

I understood he was using the same formula day to day, and getting the right result. That's meaningful. Coming up with a new formula each day isnt.

---

Agreed.

He's not using the same equation. Go back even a couple days in the Twitter guy's feed. He was thinking by Feb 4 we'd already be over 24,000 cases... Wrong.

https://twitter.com/evdefender/status/1224857830538272768/photo/1

Big Al 1992 said:

---

This isn't a surprise. But this is what I would watch - what happens to those 20 and how soon does it happen. If 10/20 pass away with decent medical care then we are f'd. If all 20 recover than we are good - just keep tabs on them to see if they are more prone to getting sick easier, later on.

---

Yeah this is what we need to watch. If a significant percentage die then it's time to prepare full out.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Of course if you best fit you can *always* find a polynomial of sufficient order to get you an r^2 of 1.

I understood he was using the same formula day to day, and getting the right result. That's meaningful. Coming up with a new formula each day isnt.

---

Yeah I assumed it was the same formula every day. Changing the formula daily would provide meaningless data and he would obviously be wrong.

Yeah you're right. What a dork.

edit - old news

New article about mutations that may become resistant to antiviral drugs.

Coronavirus is Mutating

Quote:

---

Virology specialists from the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai in two different studies have confirmed that the coronavirus is mutating and becoming more virulent.

---

Quote:

---

In different study by Dr Fang Li from the University of Minnesota that was published in the Journal of Virology, on the 29th Of January 2020 (url link found below), lead researcher Dr Fang Li, warned after studying the genome of the virus that their research data alarmingly predicts that a single mutation (at a specific spot in the genome) could significantly enhance the Wuhan coronavirus's ability to bind with human angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) receptors to become extremely potent and deadly.Pp

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Big Al 1992 said:

---

This isn't a surprise. But this is what I would watch - what happens to those 20 and how soon does it happen. If 10/20 pass away with decent medical care then we are f'd. If all 20 recover than we are good - just keep tabs on them to see if they are more prone to getting sick easier, later on.

---

Yeah this is what we need to watch. If a significant percentage die then it's time to prepare full out.

---

Why are you solely concerned about the morality rate? The morality rate can change dramatically based on the type of population infected.

It's hard to compare the operations of a cruise ship with tightly confined spaces and heavy population density but we can come up with some analogs to try to see how the virus could spread and what the morality rate could be.

For instance, lets use a "nursing home" as an example. There are all types of facilities type such as assisted living, retirement community, memory care etc. Like cruise ships, they all have similar operations with living quarters, activity rooms and dining areas where people gather on a daily basis then at night they go back to their sleeping quarters. On the operations side, you have care givers, kitchen staff, building/maintenance staff, cleaning crews and administrative staff.

IF this corona virus were to get into one of these facilities, what would be the result based on the data/information we've received so far? Let's assume, it's spread via contact on infected surfaces and breathing air in close proximity to an infected person with or without symptoms.

We can presume the virus would infect and kill quite a few of the patient/tenants. The population is made up of elderly with declining health. They aren't 25 anymore. The morality rate would be very high.

Now apply the same rate of infection to a college dormitory, similar operations (with some exceptions) but much younger population. The morality rate, based on health/age, is going to be much lower.



We shouldn't focus on the morality rate as the key indicator unless it's skewed to the young and healthy. It's the rate at which it spreads that is most important.

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Why are you solely concerned about the morality rate?

---

Because we know this damned thing is crazy contagious but we don't know how severe it is. Our preparations will change if this is a bad flu (2% mortality rate), something deadlier (50%) or end of the world superbug (99%).

We don't believe anything China says and we're stuck with rumors. A cruise ship may not be the ideal test situation, but it will at least be honest and help us know how to prep.

The test is Monday. China needs it's workforce back in factories to gear up for orders. If they are ordered back to work the most likely they've got a hold on the bug.

If they're ordered to stay home then there's going to be a mad scramble in the manufacturing sector and confidence in China will evaporate. The. One thing China wants to preserve is its economy. Lost orders will have a massive effect on GDP. Ignore the numbers on infected/killed, watch what their policies are. The longer people are kept from work the worse this **** is, and the global economy is going to make changes to accommodate.

Another approximately 15 million people headed to quarantine? Not a true quarantine yet, but definitely a step in that direction. I believe this is a suburb of Beijing. ,

I agree to an extent but if that ship is full of people celebrating their retirement vs. a Disney cruise, the data could be flawed. The virus w a 50% morality on a ship full of Make-a-Wish kids wouldn't raise too many alarm bells w me.

Unfortunately, the truth is we aren't going to have actual good data and conclusions until a year or two down the road. We are in the very early stages still.

Everyone wants an answer now but this thing has got to run its course.


Down the road we will probably find 3rd world countries with poor sanitation and densely populated confined spaces hit the hardest.

Interesting scientific article:

Genomic epidemiology of novel coronavirus (nCoV)

Quote:

---

This phylogeny shows evolutionary relationships of viruses from the novel coronavirus (nCoV) outbreak. All samples are highly related with at most seven mutations relative to a common ancestor, suggesting a shared common ancestor some time in Nov-Dec 2019. This indicates an initial human infection in Nov-Dec 2019 followed by sustained human-to-human transmission leading to sampled infections.

We observe clustering of related infections in Zhuhai, Foshan, Shenzhen and Paris. So far, all of these clusters are noted as "family cluster infection". This represents clear direct human-to-human transmission within a house-hold. We do not yet see clear evidence in the phylogeny for community spread outside of Wuhan.

---

So very close repeated contact.

OnlyForNow said:

---

So very close repeated contact.

---

Appears to be valid based on that article, analyzing 57 different samples from around the world.

The article has an interactive graph and map showing their analysis.

"Virtually a death camp?"

Not a sky is falling comment but the fact the military is air lifting and quarantining US citizens from China is telling.

If in 14-21 dats we start seeing cases in the communities around the military bases... I'll be in SHTF mode.

That is completely disheartening. I want to say we'd never see that in the US but you never know....

lunchbox said:

---

---

WTF!

This would be excellent cover for the ChiComs to also round up political dissenters. I mean loading people into a metal box?!

lunchbox said:

---

---

yep, totally normal response. not worse than the flu.