"I’m with you.
In your analogy wook is saying we have a red car and a blue car that left point a to get to point b. At 2:00 the red car is going 60 mph but is accelerating exponentially faster while the blue car at the same time is driving 65 mph but is accelerating at an even 1 mph faster every 30 minutes. Wook is saying ignore the current mph and the fact that we have no idea when each car left point a because the only thing that matters is the growth rate. "
Fucking gold.
I think he’s a malformed rich toff whose only job is managing the family’s money. Think Eric Trump.
bahbah’s actual point is correct and getting obscured by nits nitting it up because they know what the definition of “rate of growth” is. His point is that having a much lower number of starting cases can make a big difference in how much time you have before shit gets real and that is clearly correct. For example, if you have 1 starting case and a doubling time of 4 days, it takes 49 days to get to 10,000 cases. If you change the doubling time to 3 days, it only reduces time until 10,000 cases to 36 days. It’s not true that changing starting number of cases has little impact.
This is 100% correct. The function is e^kx where k is a constant that is proportional to natural log of the doubling time (in e.g days), and x is (e.g.) days. In the toy case of a doubling time of 1 day, k = ln(2) [about 0.693]. For longer doubling times, it’s smaller. Obviously this is a simplification and there are other factors in play in the real world.
The reason everyone is dunking on bahbah is because he’s a moron, though. The fact that he hit a one-outer with his claim about the number of starting cases just means he’s running sick over ev. Being right for the wrong reasons is as good as being wrong.
I guess the problem here is if you have say 4 known cases - you could have 8 cases, or more than 40 cases. So you never really know your starting number right?
My boss told me where her parents live in Chongqing (city of 30M, 50% larger than NYC metro area) they shut the whole city down then they got 10 positive tests.
bahbah is a dumbass and not expressing himself clearly, don’t see why that means we have to pretend true things are wrong. I was particularly “wat” about this:
This is an argument that Trump’s China ban might well have been successful, in fact it’s probably the only thing he’s done right through this whole thing. The answer to saying Trump’s China ban isn’t to be like ACTUALLY EUROPEANS THO and argue on that turf, the correct answer is “If you’ve done such a good job and your China travel ban was so amazing, how come we have half a million cases?”.
His “point” is meaningless in the context of him defending Trump’s China ban. Because literally nothing was done so it didn’t matter if 1 person or 400000 were let in during that ban. We did nothing to manage it.
Plus all of his other examples and analogies are nonsense.
His whole argument is claiming trump accomplished something with his Chinese travel ban. He is wrong.
I didn’t dunk on him for his claim about the number of starting cases. In fact, had I not been banned, I was going to write up an informative post about how the exponential function works, with pictures and shit, and pretty much make your point about the number of starting cases “shifting” the graph. WN banned me tho, so they can go fuck themselves.
So if the China ban made all this stuff happen two weeks later, is that better? I guess it gets us two weeks closer to a vaccine.
You realize his entire set of arguments is based on doing something right.
We know at least 400,000 people arrived from China after the “travel ban”.
Fact is trump did nothing to reduce the impact of the virus for months, literally nothing.
If trump banned travel from China, quarantined those who came through, tested and traced, then we can discuss if he had an impact.
If we talk about him having a leaky travel ban from one country with no follow up then he did nothing. Baha was arguing that the travel ban kept more people from getting sick. He thinks that by having a travel ban you will significantly reduce deaths even if you do nothing else. That is not true.
I asked exactly this in the thread, post 10134, and following post is bahbah’s response.
It could have been. It wasn’t in practice. Trump’s defence is sort of like me playing Magnus Carlsen at chess, running the game through an engine afterwards, and claiming to be a genius because at a few points in the game I made the engine’s top recommended move. It’s not very impressive if I made bad moves at various other points in the game and ended up getting wiped off the board.
The number is 40,000, as of a week ago, mostly American citizens. It was running at about 300,000 per month before that. It’s impossible to say how much this delayed the “shit getting real” phase of the outbreak. It doesn’t matter because the time got squandered anyway.
Edit: The fact that the NY outbreak (maybe the rest of US too? idk, cbf googling) is largely Europe-sourced is a (weak) argument that the China travel restrictions did delay the onset.
I should also clarify here - the number of starting cases shifts the graph along the x axis, it doesn’t change its shape (i.e. derivative), which I think is what bahbah was implying.
Goddamit I keep posting in the wrong threads.
Nah brah, Trump’s defence is more like “I cold 6 bet shoved 42o with no fold equity and got cracked by aces”
No, the problem with his entire posting run is his loose use of language around what he means by “growth”, using it where he means “increase”. For example:
This is either bad reading comprehension or nittery. The sole problem with bahbah’s post is that he said “growth” rather than “increase in cases” in paragraph 1. If you ask a normie “in scenario 1 deaths go up by 50,000 on day 10, in scenario 2 they go up by 500 on day 10, does scenario 1 have a greater rate of growth” they will answer “yes”.
The thing is, e^k(x+ln(10,000)) converges to e^kx pretty quickly for equal values of k (obviously the bigger the k, the quicker the convergence). Mathematically, these functions have equal rates of growth, and a “normie” might well interpret things the way you posit, but that is because the exponential function is counterintuitive in general - see my example about the ponds and the lilies.
ChrisV going to the mat for bahbahmickey on unstuck is not something I had on my anticipated list of happenings today. But here we are.
