You said exponential. It hasn’t be exponential.
Italy had 1,200 deaths within a week of hitting 197 and were not counting nursing home deaths.
It just hasn’t happened like you predicted it would.
You can’t be making those sorts of predictions without looking at the other stats out there.
It has been exponential. We have doubled our deaths in a week. I never predicted an Italy type situation, I just said we’d see what our situation would look like (better than Italy, worse than South Korea) which is what you’d expect given the relative handling of the situation in each place
You don’t get to decide what I predict. I was comparing us to other countries, not predicting what our outcome would be. Now that our trajectory looks flatter I would confidently predict that we won’t see an outcome like Italy, given the parameters remain the same
It really hasn’t based on who you compared to.
Since hitting 210, it’s been 25, 33, 25, 32, 14, 31 and 41. This hasn’t “come off the floor” as you predicted.
As I pointed out then, you had to consider the geographic cluster there, the relative tests rates at the time and other factors that made a like for like comparison impossible.
it has come off the floor, you can see the trajectory of the graph relative to Italy.
We doubled our deaths in a week mate, we had more deaths in that week than we had in a month.
You can see on the graph relative to Italy, our trajectory looks flatter, which is what you would have hoped for and expected given the measures. Again I never made a prediction on the number of deaths, I said that our trajectory would be revealed at this scale.
I’m comparing one variable, I’m purposely excluding all other variables as they are too noisy and inconsistent. I’d do ICU but I can’t get data relative to each country
If we can continue to keep that trajectory relatively flat, then that would be a really encouraging sign
This 3 week period is huge
I think the biggest mistake people are making is expecting the deaths to drop at the same rate they increased (not aimed at you @anon78624367), in other words a bell shaped curve. Clearly the rapid ramp up in deaths was based off no mitigation efforts from the first infections through mid March when measures were put in place. With a 2-6 week lag between infection and death, every country saw a steep ramp up in deaths from mid March onwards.
What you would expect to see now is a slow decline, or a tail. There are still infections as there wan’t a complete lock down, so there will continue to be deaths. But the actual rate of infections has to have slowed greatly by now, otherwise the measures have been a waste of time.
The death rate is skewed day to day because of the nature of convalescence and the length of time from infection to death/recovery
I would say doubling every week is not a sign you are out of the woods, by any stretch of the imagination though
I think the point was that the 200 death point was a completely pointless figure, and it really was.
You are on the one hand saying it is exponential but on the other saying it isn’t, based on your previous metric. Off the floor on an axis of 2,000 increments means just that. You compared to other countries. Germany doubled 3 days from that mark, Italy in 2-3 days. It’s taken a week here, and we haven’t even doubled. Arbitrarily taking a week to suit your pattern makes no sense based on your post. It looks far more linear here, relatively speaking, and likely because we tested a lot more relatively early in our sequence.
but that’s exactly it. It is exponential, it’s growing at a different rate in different countries based on different measures etc, but at this scale you can see a trajectory at 200 deaths, whether it’s doubling every 2 days, 3 days or 1 week is exactly what exponential growth is. Just different rates.
It’s not arbitrary, it’s a comparative measure of the worst case scenario versus other countries on one variable.
We look to be at a doubling every week. But hopefully that will tail off because of the measures
It isn’t on the rates that you were talking about. You were talking about linear vs exponential and the path of Italy or not. Italy went 7 times within a week, and weren’t even properly including all their care home deaths.
I thought the 200 comparison was pointless for that reason. I don’t think we are out of the woods certainly but our growth rate has slowed considerably. I said it at the time that comparing to Italy was pointless due to their geographic concentration and relative testing at that point.
Except the rates you were talking about were theirs and coming off the floor and using 200 as a benchmark. The issue was using the 200 benchmark. It was pointless.
It’s not pointless at all. Relative to Italy, at in and around 200 deaths we begin to see the trajectory of our curve versus theirs. This is ours at a smaller scale… tell me that’s not exponential
As much as you try and convince yourself I was predicting an outcome, I absolutely wasn’t. I was predicting we may see what our outcome looks like.
Because you’ve rejigged your interval to 400 from 2000 ffs.
No it’s because it’s exponential… at higher numbers curves will look flatter but they are still exponential.
That’s my whole point that you’re missing, at the scale of worst case at the time, we see our trajectory relative to theirs at around 200 deaths.
Look you’ve got yourself awful worked up over this, if you don’t understand it, just say so
Lads please fuck off with this shit to some nerd statistics thread.
Is it appropriate to reopen the country while deaths are doubling on a weekly basis?
@Tim_Riggins seems to have developed a fierce guilt complex over being a huge supporter of Trump and the Tories, though he’s very obviously and very self-consciously trying to keep that quiet.
Sigh.
I thought you had changed your view on this that it had to be about health capacity? You flip flop all the time.
I asked a question mate.
Don’t get nasty now with your sighs and bollock acting. I’ve generally been very consistent in my opinions on this
