Same goes for liberals.

texaglurkerguy said:

---

txags92 said:

---

We don't have enough data to know what cases were actually doing in March. During March, our number of tests administered was growing exponentially, so it is no surprise that the cases were growing exponentially, when only people who were grossly symptomatic were being tested. If we had been testing the same number of people every day and the number of cases was growing, then you could conclude the cases were growing exponentially. But when the number of tests administered was increasing every day, the curve created by graphing the number of positives is meaningless in the broader scope of assessing what is or isn't working.

---

I can agree with this. However the fact that deaths also increased exponentially in March supports the conclusion that cases were too. I know your response to this reasoning will be that the reported changes to the guidelines for coding COVID deaths corrupted this data, but I find it even more unlikely that these reported changes resulted in an artificial exponential curve that in reality was linear.

At any rate, the point of my post was that in the month of March, based on the data we have available cases and deaths increased exponentially. I can concede that the points you mention may cast doubt on that conclusion, but that certainly doesn't mean that the conclusion "infections and deaths increased linearly in March" (which DallasAg claimed) is more valid.

---

Look at the stats on flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in the same time frame. The reported flu and pneumonia deaths dropped like a rock in mid-March and have flatlined ever since, because anybody who "could" have died of covid is being counted as a covid death, even without any testing to confirm whether it was actually flu, pneumonia, or covid that actually caused it. The problem is that we don't really know what those numbers would have been...even if we can guess...so we don't know what their contribution to the growth of "covid deaths" actually was.

ETA: My point is not to claim cases were or were not growing exponentially at some point in time...they almost certainly were. The point I am trying to make is that we have no idea what the REAL trend was due to the changing number of tests and the changing population we are administering them to. So comparing trends extracted from that mixed data set from two different time periods is pretty much meaningless. The objective of the whole quarantine was to avoid overwhelming the emergency rooms and running out of ventilators. We have accomplished that in all but a very few densely populated areas. So it makes sense to start loosening the restrictions in areas that are not hard hit and where we are not and have not been at risk of overwhelming the system.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

All the models that incited panic were based on Exp curve. So, the infection spread, had we done nothing would have been linear... not Exp.

---

This is simply not accurate - there is NO data that supports this. If you look at places where distancing and stay-at-home were too late, the "hot spots", they ALL show exponential growth curves.

---

Those data points are not aligning with the ones everyone else uses:

65 3/21
135 3/22
180 3/23
268 3/24
303 3/25
354 3/26
496 3/27
644 3/28
497 3/29
697 3/30




The link provided is generally the numbers everyone on here has used. It uses GMT as its day. That curve... is linear.

liberalag12 said:

---

the thinking of many on here making a conclusion that the virus is not as bad as we thought while using extreme mitigation data? The numbers are low due to these measures. How can an argument be made by using the data against your argument?

---

You have exactly zero way to prove this is the case, that's why.

Is there a general consensus that all of this BS has likely helped to some degree? Sure. But the original purpose of the shutdown and quarantines, etc. was to "flatten the curve" and prevent this overwhelming of the medical system, which was all based on the Imperial College initial reports that were wildly inaccurate regarding numbers. The second that report was proved false and it was realized that our medical system would not get overwhelmed as feared, the quarantine should have been lifted without restrictions for those tath were statistically likely to not have problems, and those that were more or most susceptible should have been given instructions on how to self isolate or lower their chances of exposure.

Bottom line, and this is literally elementary school mentality here - we can't hide a damned bubble forever like you and your ilk want. That goes against any form of common sense, just like the continual crashign of the economy for exactly zero benefit does. For all 300,000 some odd years of human history, disease has been part of our life. We survive not by hiding in bubbles, but by letting biological systems do what God and evolution designed them to do.

txags92 said:

---

texaglurkerguy said:

---

txags92 said:

---

We don't have enough data to know what cases were actually doing in March. During March, our number of tests administered was growing exponentially, so it is no surprise that the cases were growing exponentially, when only people who were grossly symptomatic were being tested. If we had been testing the same number of people every day and the number of cases was growing, then you could conclude the cases were growing exponentially. But when the number of tests administered was increasing every day, the curve created by graphing the number of positives is meaningless in the broader scope of assessing what is or isn't working.

---

I can agree with this. However the fact that deaths also increased exponentially in March supports the conclusion that cases were too. I know your response to this reasoning will be that the reported changes to the guidelines for coding COVID deaths corrupted this data, but I find it even more unlikely that these reported changes resulted in an artificial exponential curve that in reality was linear.

At any rate, the point of my post was that in the month of March, based on the data we have available cases and deaths increased exponentially. I can concede that the points you mention may cast doubt on that conclusion, but that certainly doesn't mean that the conclusion "infections and deaths increased linearly in March" (which DallasAg claimed) is more valid.

---

Look at the stats on flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in the same time frame. The reported flu and pneumonia deaths dropped like a rock in mid-March and have flatlined ever since, because anybody who "could" have died of covid is being counted as a covid death, even without any testing to confirm whether it was actually flu, pneumonia, or covid that actually caused it. The problem is that we don't really know what those numbers would have been...even if we can guess...so we don't know what their contribution to the growth of "covid deaths" actually was.

---

I would also add that this article has a good point. What it basically says it's that if covid deaths increase exponentially while total deaths remains flat, then it's more that the attribution is skewed to covid rather than covid deaths actually increasing. The chart they have shows that week 14 (week ending Apr 4) is basically flat in total deaths with week 13 while covid deaths shot up. This says that it's a reporting mechanism because we are over counting covid versus covid deaths actually increasing.


https://mises.org/wire/march-us-deaths-covid-19-totaled-less-2-percent-all-deaths

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the better questions would be, what measures of mitigation do you truly believe we've taken

---

All of the arguments made against the shelter-in-place seem naive to me. Maybe I'm totally mis-reading you here, but are you saying the curret guidelines for mitigation have not really been effective?

I am no longer going to church, sitting at restaurants, interacting in-person with my coworkers, visting my family out of town, hanging out with friends in town, going to stores, going to movies, bowling on Tuesdays, etc. etc. I am in the same room with approximately 150 fewer people on a weekly basis than I was pre-mitigation, and that doesn't count things like going to movies, eating at restaurants and exposure in stores.

I am within 6' of maybe 25 people per week now at the grocery store, and half of them are wearing masks. That's an 85% reduction in my risk of exposure and exposing someone else. If I am average, that is an unbelievable amount of mitigation.

---

I don't know where you live but maybe population ideology has more effect on levels of mitigation. But simply look at this logically. The shelter in place has so many holes in it just from "essential" businesses. If we were truly sheltering in place, every sector of our daily lifestyles should see at least a 90% drop in activity except grocerie stores, pharmacies and medical facilities. Some should have seen a 100% drop. We have so many essential businesses, liquor stores, pot shops....... that I'd say at least 33%of the population falls into one of those categories. I'm considered an essential business which is actually laughable but unfortunately the fear mongering has all but dried up my business. The jobs that are out my door but still continuing to their completion are like ant hills with activity. The roads I travel are definitely down in traffic but the amount of traffic is still around 33% of what was a daily norm. For those who want to use declined car accident fatalities as a measure of mitigation are ignoring, as they did with the exponential growth, a simple explanation that attributes to much of that. I see people being more keenly aware of their surroundings. It's fun to watch people's reactions to the traffic around them as if being to close in a car is somehow going to get them infected. I rarely see people texting or focusing on their phones while driving. Measures that would mitigate many of our normal traffic fatalities. The same could be having a greater impact on other afflictions that we normally see. But make no mistake, a large portion of the population is still going about life with only simple mitigation of quasi- social distancing and much better hygiene. I think that has had a greater impact on the mitigation than you cowering in your house.

Now let's take your personal example and try and apply logic to it. You and most you know are sheltering in place and you therefore think that is saving you and others. Where do you get your groceries, your essentials? What about the people that work at these places you think are essential to you and others? Do you think their lives are less important? The measures you're taking when you go there do help protect them to a small extent but make no mistake, they are still being exposed to thousands of you. We surely are seeing a large, disproportionate number of cases and deaths among these workers. We're not, why? They've taken measures to protect their employees but you're foolish if you think they are not being exposed to this virus exponentially higher than you.

We're going to have to reach herd immunity to get past this virus, how do you think that's going to happen? It won't just go away like an unwanted guest and a vaccine isn't happening in 12-18 months. At least not one you'd be comfortable injecting into yourself. They take years to develope safely. And while you're breathing easy in your house, maybe you can work from home, do you not care about the 10's of millions that have lost their livelihood or companies? What about the absolute devastation to families, long term heath implications that this is causing. You really think we'll be able to just press a reset button on the economy?

This was, fear mongering, overblown and sadly still is! Why? Why can't you be intellectually honest about that? The only measures that the whole population is taking is quasi social distancing and better hygiene practices. You can attribute much if not most of the mitigation of this virus to that and it is a fools errand to try otherwise.

Our politicians are paralyzed right now with fear of "blood on their hands" because we have daily death counts. Ironically, those are ever shrinking as more actual data is coming out. This was never going to be the apocalypse that was first being projected. That is a simple truth and politicians will always be politician trying to get reelected. Sad for the rest of us. Why don't we have daily death counts for heart disease? That would be a scary number.

liberalag12 said:

---

the thinking of many on here making a conclusion that the virus is not as bad as we thought while using extreme mitigation data? The numbers are low due to these measures. How can an argument be made by using the data against your argument?

---

The data will show COVID not as bad as thought because only an issue for >70yo and the 'mission creep' of extreme mitigation was not warranted.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

All the models that incited panic were based on Exp curve. So, the infection spread, had we done nothing would have been linear... not Exp.

---

This is simply not accurate - there is NO data that supports this. If you look at places where distancing and stay-at-home were too late, the "hot spots", they ALL show exponential growth curves.

---

Those data points are not aligning with the ones everyone else uses:

65 3/21
135 3/22
180 3/23
268 3/24
303 3/25
354 3/26
496 3/27
644 3/28
497 3/29
697 3/30




The link provided is generally the numbers everyone on here has used. It uses GMT as its day. That curve... is linear.

---

If the the number of new deaths per day increases linearly over time, that means the total number of deaths increases parabolically/exponentially over time. That's what people mean by exponential growth.

If we took New York and their stupid politicians and infamous subway system out of the numbers, it would look great nationally.

You're still allowed to shelter in place or socially distance yourselves, it's just that the rest of the country can decide what they want to do now. Texas is only forecast for 987 deaths for goodness sakes.

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

All the models that incited panic were based on Exp curve. So, the infection spread, had we done nothing would have been linear... not Exp.

---

This is simply not accurate - there is NO data that supports this. If you look at places where distancing and stay-at-home were too late, the "hot spots", they ALL show exponential growth curves.

---

Those data points are not aligning with the ones everyone else uses:

65 3/21
135 3/22
180 3/23
268 3/24
303 3/25
354 3/26
496 3/27
644 3/28
497 3/29
697 3/30




The link provided is generally the numbers everyone on here has used. It uses GMT as its day. That curve... is linear.

---

If the the number of new deaths per day increases linearly over time, that means the total number of deaths increases parabolically/exponentially over time. That's what people mean by exponential growth.

---

But it doesn't change the fact that it's an attribution thing versus it actually being exponential.

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

All the models that incited panic were based on Exp curve. So, the infection spread, had we done nothing would have been linear... not Exp.

---

This is simply not accurate - there is NO data that supports this. If you look at places where distancing and stay-at-home were too late, the "hot spots", they ALL show exponential growth curves.

---

Those data points are not aligning with the ones everyone else uses:

65 3/21
135 3/22
180 3/23
268 3/24
303 3/25
354 3/26
496 3/27
644 3/28
497 3/29
697 3/30




The link provided is generally the numbers everyone on here has used. It uses GMT as its day. That curve... is linear.

---

If the the number of new deaths per day increases linearly, that means the total number of deaths increases parabolically/exponentially. That's what people mean by exponential growth.

---

Yet flu deaths decreased linearly, which would mean they decreased exponentially.

People dying of respiratory issues were mostly being chalked up to chinese virus with no data proving that true.

Quote:

---

The link provided is generally the numbers everyone on here has used. It uses GMT as its day. That curve... is linear.

---

My graphic is basically showing the same numbers, but over the entire month of March.
You can impose a linear regression onto cherry-picked subsets of a full distribution. That doesn't mean it is a good fit.

So, for instance, look at the page you linked at the graphic called "daily deaths". Draw a straight line between the begin date you just graphed (3/21) and the end of March (3/31). Every single date in betweeen falls underneath your line, which means it is a poor fit. Using a linear regression for example, you expect that at any given point, your residual varation is distributed randomly above and below the model fit.

Now do the same thing starting March 1st, which is a more representative time period. Again, every single point falls underneath your model fit, this time more dramatically, because the dates aren't cherry-picked.

Weakass is weakass, whether you get there exponentially or linearly.

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

---

Yes, growth in April has stalled and total cases/deaths are increasing approximately linearly now. That's not what I'm disputing. You said growth through March was linear and not exponential. This is demonstrably untrue.

Here's a calculus lesson for you. If the total number of cases and deaths in March was increasing linearly, that would mean that the rate of growth (aka daily new cases and deaths) would be more or less constant. Simple derivative. However in March, the number of daily new cases and deaths increased day over day rather consistently. If the rate of growth increases linearly (like the number of daily new cases and deaths did in the month of March), that means the total number is increasing parabolically/exponentially. Simple integral.

Not to be insulting, but how much math have you had?

---

I've had Calc I, II, III, and DiffEq. Let's just put this to rest. It is highly unlikely you have had more math based courses at A&M, than I have. But, I would love to know what you've had.

If you have 10 people die today and 10 people die tomorrow... there is no growth in the death rate.

An exponential growth requires the increases incrementally are growing.

2 -> 4 (increase of 2)
4 -> 8 (increase of 4)
8 -> 16 (increase of 8)

The rate of GROWTH is growing.

10 -> 11 (increase of 1)
11 -> 12 (increase of 1)
12 -> 13 (increase of 1)

That is linear growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

Quote:

---

The growth of a bacterial colony is often used to illustrate it. One bacterium splits itself into two, each of which splits itself resulting in four, then eight, 16, 32, and so on. The rate of increase keeps increasing because it is proportional to the ever-increasing number of bacteria.

---

Tell me about your degree and the math you have passed.

DallasAg - graph the same numbers (daily death rate) from March 1 - March 31st from the website you linked (i.e. "the numbers everyone else is using"). Post it for everyone the same way you posted the cherry-picked date range. Then draw a straight line from the March 1st point (1 death) to the March 31st point on the graph. All of the empty space between the two lines represents the failure of a linear model.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

The link provided is generally the numbers everyone on here has used. It uses GMT as its day. That curve... is linear.

---

My graphic is basically showing the same numbers, but over the entire month of March.
You can impose a linear regression onto cherry-picked subsets of a full distribution. That doesn't mean it is a good fit.

So, for instance, look at the page you linked at the graphic called "daily deaths". Draw a straight line between the begin date you just graphed (3/21) and the end of March (3/31). Every single date in betweeen falls underneath your line, which means it is a poor fit. Using a linear regression for example, you expect that at any given point, your residual varation is distributed randomly above and below the model fit.

Now do the same thing starting March 1st, which is a more representative time period. Again, every single point falls underneath your model fit, this time more dramatically, because the dates aren't cherry-picked.

---

My eyes must be failing me.

Here is your fake news graph:



Here is my graph:


Aside from 3/29 being about the same... my top 3 stack ranked deaths compare for the same dates:
Mine <> Yours
697 <> 500
644 <> 400
497 <> 250

Those data points are not aligning with the ones everyone else uses:

65 3/21 <- 111
135 3/22 <- 95
180 3/23 <- 175
268 3/24 <- 201
303 3/25 <- 250
354 3/26 <- 225
496 3/27 <- 210
644 3/28 <- 400
497 3/29 <- 500
697 3/30 <- No data point
==========================
2,942 >>>> 2,167

Quote:

---

Here is your fake news graph:

---

That graphic was produced at an earlier date, probably with incomplete data. You can make one that looks very much the same by using the data on the website you linked. You just have to commit to not cherry-picking the date range. Try it with the entire month of March as I described above.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

---

Yes, growth in April has stalled and total cases/deaths are increasing approximately linearly now. That's not what I'm disputing. You said growth through March was linear and not exponential. This is demonstrably untrue.

Here's a calculus lesson for you. If the total number of cases and deaths in March was increasing linearly, that would mean that the rate of growth (aka daily new cases and deaths) would be more or less constant. Simple derivative. However in March, the number of daily new cases and deaths increased day over day rather consistently. If the rate of growth increases linearly (like the number of daily new cases and deaths did in the month of March), that means the total number is increasing parabolically/exponentially. Simple integral.

Not to be insulting, but how much math have you had?

---

I've had Calc I, II, III, and DiffEq. Let's just put this to rest. It is highly unlikely you have had more math based courses at A&M, than I have. But, I would love to know what you've had.

If you have 10 people die today and 10 people die tomorrow... there is no growth in the death rate.

An exponential growth requires the increases incrementally are growing.

2 -> 4 (increase of 2)
4 -> 8 (increase of 4)
8 -> 16 (increase of 8)

The rate of GROWTH is growing.

10 -> 11 (increase of 1)
11 -> 12 (increase of 1)
12 -> 13 (increase of 1)

That is linear growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

Quote:

---

The growth of a bacterial colony is often used to illustrate it. One bacterium splits itself into two, each of which splits itself resulting in four, then eight, 16, 32, and so on. The rate of increase keeps increasing because it is proportional to the ever-increasing number of bacteria.

---

Tell me about your degree and the math you have passed.

---

Engineering. Same math classes you listed, plus a few other electives.

Bolded part is incorrect. You seem to be confusing the rate of growth with growth itself. If the rate of growth is growing linearly, it is parabolic growth. If the rate of growth is constant, it is linear growth. The rate of growth (daily new deaths per day) did increase in March.

We can split hairs all day about whether the growth in March was exponential or parabolic. But it certainly was not linear.

Just curious how you explain the NYC, despite all of their attempts to isolate, has horrible numbers.

Maybe taking a bunch of sick people and locking them in buildings with healthy people where they all live on top of each other and breath the same air was a really freaking stupid thing to do.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Here is your fake news graph:

---

That graphic was produced at an earlier date, probably with incomplete data. You can make one that looks very much the same by using the data on the website you linked. You just have to commit to not cherry-picking the date range. Try it with the entire month of March as I described above.

---

No cherry picking done.

Your graph probably doesn't include the stacking of deaths added by NY in order to pad the numbers. It is a double edged sword. Stack the death count with non-CV19 deaths and it flattens the growth rate of deaths, but it increased the death rate of those confirmed.

Don't include them and the death rate looks trivial compared to what was projected, but you get a better growth curve.

I didn't cherry-pick the data. Until March 13th, I got zero deaths, except for 8 on March 11. My graph was specifically done to refute the following point made by texaglurkerguy

Quote:

---

New cases may be approximately linear now that we've been social distancing for ~5 weeks, but it was very much growing exponentially from mid March to end of March. The trajectory of deaths too was growing exponentially up until about a week ago.

---

So, I took mid-March. Which coincided with the dataset he linked. Anyone can go to the website for themselves and look. I had even gone down to the daily posts on counts and it provided no values. If you have values... I can include them. For what you asked and provided by your location (and mine) it looks like this:

NYC is not 'locked in their buildings.' Half of Manhattan doesn't even know how to cook a can of soup on their own. They kept their subway running the whole time, but they decreased the frequencies of trains (to save the system money) so people were all packed in together even more so.

They also kept their parks open until around 2 weeks ago. You can't make up how badly NYC has handled this.

Quote:

---

Just curious how you explain the NYC, despite all of their attempts to isolate, has horrible numbers.

Maybe taking a bunch of sick people and locking them in buildings with healthy people where they all live on top of each other and breath the same air was a really freaking stupid thing to do.

---

If you've ever been to NYC, you understand what happened. The virus got in early and undetected by all accounts. It's a walking community. Any given street sidewalk is shoulder to shoulder at rush hour. Subways. Crowds everywhere.

NYC doesn't have horrible numbers because they are sheltering. They have horrible numbers because of what was going on BEFORE sheltering.

Quote:

---

So, I took mid-March. Which coincided with the dataset he linked. Anyone can go to the website for themselves and look. I had even gone down to the daily posts on counts and it provided no values. If you have values... I can include them. For what you asked and provided by your location (and mine) it looks like this:

---

Yep, that's what mine looks like, except mine includes the point for March 31st (1079 deaths), yours clearly does not include that point.

Even without it, draw a straight line from any point on that graph prior to the 14th, up to your last point. The only date that does not fall well below that "linear" model is the 28th. When your residual variation all falls on one side of the model or the other, that means that your model is a terrible fit.

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Just curious how you explain the NYC, despite all of their attempts to isolate, has horrible numbers.

Maybe taking a bunch of sick people and locking them in buildings with healthy people where they all live on top of each other and breath the same air was a really freaking stupid thing to do.

---

If you've ever been to NYC, you understand what happened. The virus got in early and undetected by all accounts. It's a walking community. Any given street sidewalk is shoulder to shoulder at rush hour. Subways. Crowds everywhere.

NYC doesn't have horrible numbers because they are sheltering. They have horrible numbers because of what was going on BEFORE sheltering.

---

I've been there.

They have horrible numbers because their politicians are idiots, and did things like keeping the subways open, mandating transit workers couldn't wear masks, preventing an isolation of the region etc;

Quote:

---

Why didn't Andy "If it saves just one life it's worth it" Cuomo order the subways closed down? Because essential employees needed them to get to work, of course. So never mind the "one life" nonsense. I don't think New York is unique; rather, I think the shutdowns across America are largely faux closures, given the many exceptions for favored industries, favored companies and favored activitiessome rational, others not. New York is perhaps an extreme instance of a fake shutdown.

Given the extraordinary discrepancy between New York City and the rest of the country, it would have made sense to quarantine New York from the rest of us, just as it made sense to ban travel to the U.S. from China (over the objection of more or less every prominent Democrat) at the end of January. President Trump publicly flirted with the idea of quarantining New York, but Andy "If it saves just one life it's worth it" Cuomo went crazy, and Trump backed down. At around the same time, Rhode Island's highway patrol was stopping vehicles from New York to try to prevent them from bringing the COVID contagion to Rhode Islanda good idea, in principle, from which Rhode Island's governor quickly backed down.
So, did New York City's shutdown fail? Or was there never, in fact, a real shutdown at all?

---

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

---

Yes, growth in April has stalled and total cases/deaths are increasing approximately linearly now. That's not what I'm disputing. You said growth through March was linear and not exponential. This is demonstrably untrue.

Here's a calculus lesson for you. If the total number of cases and deaths in March was increasing linearly, that would mean that the rate of growth (aka daily new cases and deaths) would be more or less constant. Simple derivative. However in March, the number of daily new cases and deaths increased day over day rather consistently. If the rate of growth increases linearly (like the number of daily new cases and deaths did in the month of March), that means the total number is increasing parabolically/exponentially. Simple integral.

Not to be insulting, but how much math have you had?

---

I've had Calc I, II, III, and DiffEq. Let's just put this to rest. It is highly unlikely you have had more math based courses at A&M, than I have. But, I would love to know what you've had.

If you have 10 people die today and 10 people die tomorrow... there is no growth in the death rate.

An exponential growth requires the increases incrementally are growing.

2 -> 4 (increase of 2)
4 -> 8 (increase of 4)
8 -> 16 (increase of 8)

The rate of GROWTH is growing.

10 -> 11 (increase of 1)
11 -> 12 (increase of 1)
12 -> 13 (increase of 1)

That is linear growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

Quote:

---

The growth of a bacterial colony is often used to illustrate it. One bacterium splits itself into two, each of which splits itself resulting in four, then eight, 16, 32, and so on. The rate of increase keeps increasing because it is proportional to the ever-increasing number of bacteria.

---

Tell me about your degree and the math you have passed.

---

Engineering. Same math classes you listed, plus a few other electives.

Bolded part is incorrect. You seem to be confusing the rate of growth with growth itself. If the rate of growth is growing linearly, it is parabolic growth. If the rate of growth is constant, it is linear growth. The rate of growth (daily new deaths per day) did increase in March.

We can split hairs all day about whether the growth in March was exponential or parabolic. But it certainly was not linear.

---

I would accept parabolic...

I have my HP28S... maybe I can extra the exact relationship.

My electives... **gasp**

Quote:

---

I've been there.

They have horrible numbers because their politicians are idiots, and did things like keeping the subways open, mandating transit workers couldn't wear masks, preventing an isolation of the region etc;

---

oops. got you confused with somebody else.

Quote:

---

I would accept parabolic

---

If we're talking about demographics or stocks or something along those lines, I'll defer the assignment of terms to somebody else.

However I use a wide range of statistics and model-fitting daily in my job. If we're dealing purely in statistical terms, the relationship can absolutely be described as exponential.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Here is your fake news graph:

---

That graphic was produced at an earlier date, probably with incomplete data. You can make one that looks very much the same by using the data on the website you linked. You just have to commit to not cherry-picking the date range. Try it with the entire month of March as I described above.

---

No cherry picking done.

Your graph probably doesn't include the stacking of deaths added by NY in order to pad the numbers. It is a double edged sword. Stack the death count with non-CV19 deaths and it flattens the growth rate of deaths, but it increased the death rate of those confirmed.

Don't include them and the death rate looks trivial compared to what was projected, but you get a better growth curve.

I didn't cherry-pick the data. Until March 13th, I got zero deaths, except for 8 on March 11. My graph was specifically done to refute the following point made by texaglurkerguy

Quote:

---

New cases may be approximately linear now that we've been social distancing for ~5 weeks, but it was very much growing exponentially from mid March to end of March. The trajectory of deaths too was growing exponentially up until about a week ago.

---

So, I took mid-March. Which coincided with the dataset he linked. Anyone can go to the website for themselves and look. I had even gone down to the daily posts on counts and it provided no values. If you have values... I can include them. For what you asked and provided by your location (and mine) it looks like this:

---

The inflection point on that graph (March 21st) is the date that the guidance was changed to report all deaths that "may" have been related to Covid as covid deaths regardless of whether there was any testing to indicate the person actually had covid. Comparing data prior to that inflection point to data after that point is useless because you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a # of deaths counted ONLY if testing confirmed positive and covid CAUSED the death to #s counted if it was possible that covid was INVOLVED. You guys can sit around measuring your math wanguses all you want, but as a geologist who failed more calculus classes than I passed, even I know that drawing a curve based on those two different datasets is a useless exercise for trying to decipher a trend.

txags92 said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

MassAggie97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Here is your fake news graph:

---

That graphic was produced at an earlier date, probably with incomplete data. You can make one that looks very much the same by using the data on the website you linked. You just have to commit to not cherry-picking the date range. Try it with the entire month of March as I described above.

---

No cherry picking done.

Your graph probably doesn't include the stacking of deaths added by NY in order to pad the numbers. It is a double edged sword. Stack the death count with non-CV19 deaths and it flattens the growth rate of deaths, but it increased the death rate of those confirmed.

Don't include them and the death rate looks trivial compared to what was projected, but you get a better growth curve.

I didn't cherry-pick the data. Until March 13th, I got zero deaths, except for 8 on March 11. My graph was specifically done to refute the following point made by texaglurkerguy

Quote:

---

New cases may be approximately linear now that we've been social distancing for ~5 weeks, but it was very much growing exponentially from mid March to end of March. The trajectory of deaths too was growing exponentially up until about a week ago.

---

So, I took mid-March. Which coincided with the dataset he linked. Anyone can go to the website for themselves and look. I had even gone down to the daily posts on counts and it provided no values. If you have values... I can include them. For what you asked and provided by your location (and mine) it looks like this:

---

The inflection point on that graph (March 21st) is the date that the guidance was changed to report all deaths that "may" have been related to Covid as covid deaths regardless of whether there was any testing to indicate the person actually had covid. Comparing data prior to that inflection point to data after that point is useless because you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a # of deaths counted ONLY if testing confirmed positive and covid CAUSED the death to #s counted if it was possible that covid was INVOLVED. You guys can sit around measuring your math wanguses all you want, but as a geologist who failed more calculus classes than I passed, even I know that drawing a curve based on those two different datasets is a useless exercise for trying to decipher a trend.

---

As someone that went to EE school and got As in ...well....everything....

All this fancy graphing is dumb when all you need is semi-functioning eyes to see this isn't some super dangerous virus.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

texaglurkerguy said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

---

Yes, growth in April has stalled and total cases/deaths are increasing approximately linearly now. That's not what I'm disputing. You said growth through March was linear and not exponential. This is demonstrably untrue.

Here's a calculus lesson for you. If the total number of cases and deaths in March was increasing linearly, that would mean that the rate of growth (aka daily new cases and deaths) would be more or less constant. Simple derivative. However in March, the number of daily new cases and deaths increased day over day rather consistently. If the rate of growth increases linearly (like the number of daily new cases and deaths did in the month of March), that means the total number is increasing parabolically/exponentially. Simple integral.

Not to be insulting, but how much math have you had?

---

I've had Calc I, II, III, and DiffEq. Let's just put this to rest. It is highly unlikely you have had more math based courses at A&M, than I have. But, I would love to know what you've had.

If you have 10 people die today and 10 people die tomorrow... there is no growth in the death rate.

An exponential growth requires the increases incrementally are growing.

2 -> 4 (increase of 2)
4 -> 8 (increase of 4)
8 -> 16 (increase of 8)

The rate of GROWTH is growing.

10 -> 11 (increase of 1)
11 -> 12 (increase of 1)
12 -> 13 (increase of 1)

That is linear growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

Quote:

---

The growth of a bacterial colony is often used to illustrate it. One bacterium splits itself into two, each of which splits itself resulting in four, then eight, 16, 32, and so on. The rate of increase keeps increasing because it is proportional to the ever-increasing number of bacteria.

---

Tell me about your degree and the math you have passed.

---

Engineering. Same math classes you listed, plus a few other electives.

Bolded part is incorrect. You seem to be confusing the rate of growth with growth itself. If the rate of growth is growing linearly, it is parabolic growth. If the rate of growth is constant, it is linear growth. The rate of growth (daily new deaths per day) did increase in March.

We can split hairs all day about whether the growth in March was exponential or parabolic. But it certainly was not linear.

---

I would accept parabolic...

I have my HP28S... maybe I can extra the exact relationship.

My electives... **gasp**

---

Out of curiosity I ran the numbers posted on worldometer for total deaths in the US vs. time through a regression calculator, and the relationship between total US deaths and time (in days) from March 1 to 31 can be approximated by the exponential function:

TOTAL DEATHS=2.6396*1.2737^DAY

With a correlation coefficient of 0.995. It also fits the cubic regression:

TOTAL DEATHS=0.6552*DAY^3 - 21.2831*DAY^2 + 194.3465*DAY - 388.9399

Also with a correlation coefficient of 0.995.

I think our disagreement is mostly due to my poor wording in the first response:

Quote:

---

New cases may be approximately linear now that we've been social distancing for ~5 weeks, but it was very much growing exponentially from mid March to end of March. The trajectory of deaths too was growing exponentially up until about a week ago.

---

By "it" I meant to say "total cases". I can see how the phrasing suggested I was referring to the growth rate.

liberalag12 said:

---

Good point. Here is the problem though. Even if the death rate is much lower say .03 or lower without severe mitigation it would spread throughout the population. There are roughly 325 million people in the US. Even if we said only half the population is affected the number would be in the millions. Heck, I agree with what Trump said yesterday which is the number would be between 1 to 2 million.

This is Science. Not politics or at least it should be.

---

Italy's death per million currently sits at 407.9 peer million and very few percentage deaths per day. They will most likely not get up to 1,000 per million and we hear about how hard hit Italy was, When we translate this to the US population even using 1,000 per million which will be HIGHER than Italy we get a total of 347,000 deaths in the US. This seems to be a little short of 1-2 million agreed?

Yeah are all missing the big picture. We can all pull out our math *****es and measure like you all are doing, but it doesn't matter. If the total deaths across months has not increased, the curve for covid can look like the shuttle taking off and it could still be actually linear because you have an underlying data attribution problem. (Aerospace engineering with ****loads more math than dallasag btw).

If covid looks exponential and flu decreases exponential but total deaths is constant, the answer is that covid isn't exponential unless there flu suddenly disappeared from existence.

It was a huge mistake to overreact in the manner that we did. We killed a roaring economy to save a small number of healthy people. The virus killed many people with underlying health conditions (similar to what the flu does). But unfortunately our leaders had to do something because not doing so opens everyone up to lawsuits and public shaming. When you consider elected officials are the ones making these decisions, I am not sure which of these 2 factors weigh more. The histrionics of both sides is just a mere byproduct of what we have become as a society.

We will see where we get when it opens up again.

You can't say it isn't serious in the areas where it has really gotten going.

New York State has 1 out of every 1000 people in the state dead from it so far. Their annual average deaths/1000 people is 7.5. They could easily match that this year from COVID.

Now, everywhere isn't going to be New York. But I think it is fair to say that it is dangerous.

Nearly 40,000 deaths in the past 20 days.

Then why shelter?