Not disagreeing because cranky conspiracy theories based on coincidental similarities (remember the KKK that people claimed appeared when you took a packet of Marlboro apart?) have been doing the rounds since forever probably, but the internet brings to attention-seeking idiots the potential of accelerating the spread across the planet in next to no time.
It’s deeply worrying and not surprising that many can’t tell the difference between hoax and truth with the boundaries becoming ever more blurred, and even with the inclination not enough time to investigate them all properly - easier to forward/retweet/repost it and JAQ.
Yes. Even a low exponential will start to curve up eventually.
To me the big issue is that we are trying to maintain a 1 plus or minus at a much too high level of overall infection. If we knocked it down 90% then we have room to avoid disaster on opening or change in weather. It doesn’t take much of an exponent from where we are at now to get back to 2500 deaths per day.
Yep, and we’ve probably got another ~month of fooling ourselves into thinking the data are “basically flat” due to lag time infections and deaths, the cumulative effect of slow reopenings gaining steam around the country, cases continuing to fall in hard-hit places still shut down, etc. A lot of things can happen, but my guess is that in a month deaths have trended up to 2,000+ a day again and are visibly gaining steam. And then it starts to dawn on people this isn’t going to be easy to get through.
If I am understanding the whole R thing correctly with a R = 1.2 and a 2 week infection cycle then on average it takes roughly 4 cycles or 2 months for cases to double. At 1.1 it takes roughly 8 cycles or 4 months for cases to double. At 1.01 it takes even longer and so on.
I understand in all these examples that the growth is exponential but how long it takes to hit an uptick that is noticeable in the data is wildly different. If I have that wrong please correct me as I am still learning how all this works tbh.
As TheNewT50 said there is also a lag in between getting infected, getting sick enough to consider getting a test, getting the test, waiting for the results and then having a positive or negative outcome in your case. So those two things combined are why I say it will be at least a couple months from the moment Chili’s reopened until seeing a significant uptick in the data.
Thanks - this is a great resource. If I’m reading this right - the green line is what we want to look at for potential evidence of other deaths being mislabeled covid.
Looks like California has had enough and is ready to open for business. Took about week to go from “How should we decide to reopen” to “fuck it let’s go”.
Two of my older relatives are peak morons. Holy shit. They printed fake medical documents claiming they have a respiratory condition that would be exacerbated if they were wearing a mask. All so they can tell people to shut up if shopping and told masks are required.
Part of it is the states we had a pact with were pushing to reopen so I guess to keep the pact alive California is speeding up its process. A similar thing happened with a few Bay Area counties, they all had pacts to stay sheltered in place and when Santa Clara county didn’t feel safe reopening the other counties started talking about dropping the pact.
It’s funny that Southern California complained about the rules being too restrictive while their infections continue climbing…
