Though I will ask for sources on this use of local exponential trend? Genuinely curious. I can see the appeal of having a model that splits the time trend like that.

It's great, isn't it? If you keep readjusting your model as you go along, you can do pretty much anything. You can make your model linear, or logarithmic, or... why even settle on one function? You can make up a new one for each iteration.

The data I posted in a post above showed 0% (rounded, it wasn't 0 in actual cases) of current cases were severe. That's the data. — Hanover

Rounded, right.

Ever thought being critical about data? Especially one that simply doesn't add up? You really think NOBODY is hospitalized or in intensive care in the US for corona-virus??? Or just less than 0,5% of those observed to be infected need hospital treatment.

It's not like people are stopped on the street and made corona-virus tests in the US. Or they would come knocking on your home door to make the test.

Though I will ask for sources on this use of local exponential trend? Genuinely curious. I can see the appeal of having a model that splits the time trend like that. — fdrake

This is just how scientists talk. I can provide plenty of examples of scientists using implied domain of validity in talking about fitting curves to data or modeling some phenomena.

Epidemiologists and ecologists talk in terms of exponential growth of a population, to explain infestation, invasive species, plagues. They say "bacteria will grow exponentially"; they then explain in the theory that "as long as there's enough food, no toxins and no predation". So, when they observe something growing exponentially they say "this is growing exponentially" like a virus replicating from cell to cell or from person to person.

Nuclear explosions are also described in terms of exponential reactions, yet, again, physicists aren't saying the reaction will grow exponentially until the nuclear bomb weighs more than the universe.

It's a useful estimate of what happens in the next relevant time step and so describes well the reaction in the starting phase.

In the outbreak phase of an epidemic, an exponential function is the best description of what's going to happen next, so they call it "exponential growth". Just like interest payments are exponential as that best describes what happens next, even though it is impossible for any bank to represent numbers that exponential growth will eventually attain.

For the situation in Italy, policy makers want to know if the measures have really gotten (or will get soon) things off an exponential growth curve in the next coming weeks or not; since the policy objective is to get the rate of infection below the health care capacity; due to this context, it doesn't matter to them that the virus would anyways start to burn out as they want to put in place policies that stop exponential growth right now.

So, if the growth rate isn't actually decaying, but still has a sustained doubling period (even 2-3 doubling periods is a significant change to the situation policy makers maybe trying to avoid; maybe even 1 doubling period they are trying to avoid), then policy makers want to put even more social distancing measures.

Of course, the true rate of infection can only be known in hindsight, as there's lag between infection and diagnosis and a sampling bias in who get's diagnosed (unless there's enough testing to have an accurate model overall).

I'm simply making the simple point that going from 3 days doubling time one week to 7 days doubling time, does not necessitate that the next week would be a 2 week doubling time time and soon no doublings at all. At any point in the "slowing down" the infection growth rate could be the new normal (until simply running out of hosts slows the virus, approaching herd immunity, or then even more extreme measures are put in place).

In terms of just empiricism generally, it's completely valid to characterize some data as growing "so far" as "linearly" or "quadratically" or "exponentially" or "sinusoidally". It may simply be true that the data follows such a trend so far and that it's the best function to estimate the next observation. No scientists would understand such a statement to imply the scientist therefore concludes it would continue for ever. Making a better prediction (for instance when it will break with the observed trend) requires a theory and justification. Since data is noisy, there's almost always opportunity to jump on some variation to justify a given model.

Likely, right now in Italy they have a few models of what's happening and don't know what's correct. Since delayed action has proven costly so far they are switching to assuming the worst model: that they are still in an exponential growth regime on a time scale that is intolerable to deal with, so, time to call in the army to maintain a stricter compliance.

I can't really be bothered continuing this. — fdrake

Sorry I missed this. This is good news since you're just being facetious for nothing, in my opinion, but I'm in self isolation so have plenty of time to go into minute detail.

Here's your source though:

The number of microorganisms in a culture will increase exponentially until an essential nutrient is exhausted. Typically the first organism splits into two daughter organisms, who then each split to form four, who split to form eight, and so on.

Because exponential growth indicates constant growth rate, it is frequently assumed that exponentially growing cells are at a steady-state. However, cells can grow exponentially at a constant rate while remodeling their metabolism and gene expression.[1]

A virus (for example SARS, or smallpox) typically will spread exponentially at first, if no artificial immunization is available. Each infected person can infect multiple new people. — Wikipedia - Exponential Growth

Does this satisfy your doubts that the scientific community describes things as growing exponentially if, in some time frame their interested in, the phenomena does grow exponentially?

Or do you want more sources of this language being used.

Do you want me to explain again why your statement:

The growth of coronavirus isn't exponential in Italy. The acceleration of the number of new positive cases has steadily been declining since the quarantines were imposed in Italy, and has now levelled off to around 0. — fdrake

Cannot be assumed to be true (in the sense biologists might use the word "exponential" in the context of organism growth).

The current policies may support more doubling times in the whole of Italy, which is perhaps why we see more measures. Italy is not similar to South Korea nor Wuhan in terms of situation and policy response, and we simply don't know if the strategy there has or will work controlling the virus on a short time scale of a few weeks (i.e. if Marshal law was necessary, and if so we cannot know if Marshal law as currently implemented solves the problem that the civilian authorities could not solve) , which is the policy objective (large cities, basic services that need to run, building designs, compliance, may not be sufficient to have an outcome similar to Wuhan, assuming for the sake of argument, those numbers are correct).

The reason to be concerned about policy failure in Italy, is because it indicates we may likely see policy failure to control the virus all over the globe; that even with the enormously disruptive measures of mass-quarantine, the virus may still easily overload medical systems.

Did Gates get it right?

So did the popular snake-oil psychic Sylvia Browne.

“In around 2020 a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and the bronchial tubes and resisting all known treatments. Almost more baffling than the illness itself will be the fact that it will suddenly vanish as quickly as it arrived, attack again ten years later, and then disappear completely.”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sylvia-browne-coronavirus/

There are several aspects to this:

1. Political. Politicians are rewarded for appearing to take the crisis seriously. Some news source listed the names of every senator who voted against the US aid package. Reddit ripped up each of them in turn. So for a politician, the path of least resistance is to accept worst case scenarios. This attests to their leadership and caring concern for the people. You would think this would create a pressurized channel of medical equipment, but it hasn't as far as I've seen. Private parties have done more to in that vein than public outlets. Odd.

2. Social inertia. Some people want to follow their habits. Others are always in the middle of, or on the verge of identifying the Antichrist and pleading with people to take shelter underground. But aren't people who want to stay in their ruts usually in the majority? In order to shift the median, you have to make people feel threatened. This can have the effect of creating a mass delusion. For instance, in order to shift the American public in the direction of taking the Soviet Union seriously, the people had to be convinced that the end of the world was near. This feeds back into a political concern: when people feel like they're in the middle of a crisis, they become lax about their values. They overlook misdeeds on the part of the government that they wouldn't have in more sane times. National security become the priority instead of thrift, freedom, or long-term planning.

Think about that in the light of a trillion dollar aid package. We just had a tax cut for the rich, and now a trillion dollars spewed across the economy, but mostly toward corporations? The only reason anyone would vote for that is that they're touched by insanity.

3. The natural world. One of the most popular storytelling themes of our time is the zombie apocalypse. Books could be written about what it signifies. But putting the zombie part to the side for a moment, the image is post-catastrophe. Deserted streets and schools. Fields unsewn. Communications shutdown. Civilization gone. For the rut-dwellers, this is their greatest fear, and so it's cathartic (I'm guessing.) For the AntiChrist identifiers, it's a beloved image: the destruction of the system that holds ruts in place, with maybe a little vengeance for arrogant humanity on the side.

Thoughts?

Also: the opening lines of Lovecraft's The Nameless City for no particular reason:

When I drew nigh the nameless city I knew it was accursed. I was traveling in a parched and terrible valley under the moon, and afar I saw it protruding uncannily above the sands as parts of a corpse may protrude from an ill-made grave. Fear spoke from the age-worn stones of this hoary survivor of the deluge, this great-grandfather of the eldest pyramid; and a viewless aura repelled me and bade me retreat from antique and sinister secrets that no man should see, and no man else had dared to see..

Remote in the desert of Araby lies the nameless city, crumbling and inarticulate, its low walls nearly hidden by the sands of uncounted ages. It must have been thus before the first stones of Memphis were laid, and while the bricks of Babylon were yet unbaked. There is no legend so old as to give it a name, or to recall that it was ever alive; but it is told of in whispers around campfires and muttered about by grandams in the tents of sheiks so that all the tribes shun it without wholly knowing why.

So apparently the big US financial relief package being worked on this weekend focuses on... bailing out the largest businesses, and I guess hoping some of that money trickles down to the actual people whose lack of money is the cause of those businesses failing.

Why the fuck can’t anybody understand that money flows up, not down, so if you want more economic activity, send money to the bottom. It’s the people at the bottom suddenly losing their access to money that is the cause of this whole crisis, the obvious solution is to just send them money, but, no, instead we need some patchwork of bullshit business bailouts that we hope will indirectly solve the problem.

The Dutch are not sufficiently sticking to the social distancing rules so I expect a lock down soon enough. A shame people don't take it seriously enough.

Anyone else working a retail job 5 days a week right now? Nah? Philosophy is easy when you're "quarantined". :party:

The politicians are headless chickens following what their experts tell them. There are teams of experts assembled in each (wealthy) country to manage the crisis.

Socially most people will follow the guidelines as best they can, but if a tighter lockdown is required it will have to be enforced. Some countries are already doing this. Once many thousands of extra ventilators have been manufactured and thousands of temporary health workers prepared each country will eventually be able to relax the controls in a managed way.

In terms of nature, yes it might be a collapse of civilisation moment, although gradual, I don't see anything sudden happening. I think more likely is that we will pull through over the next couple of years with improving treatments, maybe a vaccine and a new way of interacting, which was needed actually.

There will be a big bill to pay, but if every country had the same kind of bill to pay. Presumably they could all right it off in tandem.

Oh and by the way, take care when it gets bad where you are, avoid getting a high dose infection.

P.s. I've just seen a report that obesity and Corona don't mix, especially for folk who are borderline diabetic.

Why the fuck can’t anybody understand that money flows up, not down, so if you want more economic activity, send money to the bottom. — Pfhorrest

I thought they are planning for some sort of temporary universal income scheme to do just that.
I just hope they take in account that a lot of the people who get that handout will be spending it not for life essentials, but for more unnecessary crap from China.

Well said, its only a problem in the right wing countries. Most European countries are better than that. The UK is somewhere in between, they have pledged to fund 80% of income for employees, but seem to be hanging sole traders and small businesses out to dry.

Better to give it to the rip off merchants and billionaires instead. The poor can't be trusted with money, they just waste it, by spending it in the real economy. Better to put it in an offshore account where it never gets near the real economy.
NOT.

Better to give it to the rip off merchants and billionaires instead. The poor can't be trusted with money, they just waste it, by spending it in the real economy. Better to put it in an offshore account where it never gets near the real economy, NOT. — Punshhh

Well, if it flows back to China for more cheap plastic crap, what the difference? Note that I am not claiming there is a perfect solution here. I am just saying the simplistic slogans do not always match reality.

Well said, its only a problem in the right wing countries. Most European countries are better than that. The UK is somewhere in between, they have pledged to fund 80% of income for employees, but seem to be hanging sole traders and small businesses out to dry. — Punshhh

What the f is a "right wing country"? This whole left-right dichotomy is really getting old. Seems to be "right" or "extreme right" simply has become a cover-all label for everything the PC crowd dislikes.

But your point about Chinese crap is one of those slogans. The poor require a basic income to survive. By right wing, I mean countries where there is low regulation free markets and small welfare state. The left wing countries. Have more regulation, unions, more comprehensive welfare state.

I'm surprised that the Iranian curve is not steeper than this, I wonder how much testing is going on there, or if it is a gestimate.

But your point about Chinese crap is one of those slogans. The poor require a basic income to survive. By right wing, I mean countries where there is low regulation free markets and small welfare state. The left wing countries. Have more regulation, unions, more comprehensive welfare state. — Punshhh

Well, "the poor" is a vague description, and I have not heard my point about cheap chinese crap mentioned anywhere else, so hardly a slogan. So would you agree that something like foods stamps is a better idea than justing handing out cash?
About your definining "left" and "right" as matter of more free market vs more regulation, OK lets go with that. Surely you do realize that the free market is the engine that produces wealth in the first place, or are you a Bernie Sanders fan?

The poor are the folk who have just lost their livelihood. The other points are not worth playing ping pong with right now.

The poor are the folk who have just lost their livelihood. The other points are not worth playing ping pong with right now. — Punshhh

Yes, but you and I do not know who exactly just lost their livelyhood. Every individual situation is different. That is what so annyoing about discussing politics based on feeling. We can alway pull some sob story out of the hat and thus claim moral superiority.

Case numbers for the Netherlands are meaningless. They only test hospital employees and hospital patients.

I do know who has lost their livelihoods, I have been listening to talk radio, and have heard it directly from them.

Yes, its similar in the UK too, I don't know if the figures used in the graph are estimates, or confirmed cases.

I do know who has lost their livelihoods, I have been listening to talk radio, and have heard it directly from them. — Punshhh

Who is "they"? What percentage of the population have you interviewed?

This is rather tedious.

This is rather tedious. — Punshhh

Better go back to your talk radio.

I thought they are planning for some sort of temporary universal income scheme to do just that. — Nobeernolife

I had heard talk about that but then this morning when I searched for news of progress there all I saw were plans to bail out large employers rather than the people they employ. I guess TPTB think it’s safer to err on the side of making sure no freeloading poors get a handout than to err on the side of making sure no hardworking people slip through the cracks.

I just hope they take in account that a lot of the people who get that handout will be spending it not for life essentials, but for more unnecessary crap from China. — Nobeernolife

People will spend it on whatever they think is most necessary. Isn’t the whole point of the free market that whatever people freely choose to spend money on is what deserves that money, rather than big government telling people what’s good for them? If you give poor people money they’ll immediately spend it on whatever they judge is the most needed thing (which for most of them, especially in hard times, will be rent and then food), and whoever is best providing that most valued thing will profit the most, just like markets are supposed to do.

If you give poor people money they’ll immediately spend it on whatever they judge is the most needed thing (which for most of them, especially in hard times, will be rent and then food), — Pfhorrest

How do you know that? Right now, it seems to be toilet paper.

How do you know that? Right now, it seems to be toilet paper. — Nobeernolife

That was weak.