TexAgs91 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I'm glad you learned javascript. Next up should be statistics, then exponential growth.

---

It's not exponential. It's an epidemiological curve which has a big difference from an exponential curve: It has an upper limit.

---

While prop joes post was in jest there is a serious part of it and you actually hit on it in the very end of your rebuttal. That epidemiological curve starts out exponential until it transitions. It makes that transition when it starts to hit barriers to exponential growth. Those barriers come in the form of either a shrinking pool of people left who can be infected or limited population movement. This is where the problem lies with looking at infections as a percent of population. We are still pretty early in the spread across most of the country and because of how the early exponential growth works, you would expect to see similar growth whether you are in a city of 500k or 10MM. 1 case becomes 3 becomes 9 etc. it's not until the smaller community starts to reach a breakover point in their curve due to the population that you will see separation in those curves. So it's really not until the later stage of an epidemic that percent of population infected becomes a useful measure. At early stages it does silly things like make it look like a small county in Idaho has it worse than NYC where we know hospitals have gotten nearer to a breaking point than anyone should be comfortable with.

---

Where is the upper limit though? The barriers may depend on population density and other factors so not everyone will have the same upper limit. A place like NYC is dense and it's easier to continue the exponential phase of the curve to a higher number before it levels off than it would be much of the rest of the country.

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

HouAggie2007 said:

---

Ok, you are Trump. What would you have done differently?

---

Any state (or maybe counties) with a hotspot should go into extreme social distancing, quarantines and travel restrictions. A hotspot could be defined as counties where something like .2% of the population is infected.

Other places where there's a smaller percentage affected are on a much slower curve, and likely a curve that won't reach anywhere near the numbers seen in other hotspots. But if they do rise to .2% or whatever is deemed more appropriate, then they would be considered a hotspot and would have the same restrictions as other hotspots.

I would also think that people over 60 anywhere in the country should practice social distancing.

---

Again, if you shut down an area once it becomes a "hot spot", you're doing so probably somewhere between 1-2 weeks after it began spreading like wildfire. That's why a reactive plan seems like a horrible way to approach something with such extended lag times.

---

A county that's only .003% infected now when others are as high as 1.4% isn't on as steep of a curve. They will not grow as fast as places like NYC in 2 weeks.

---

Quote:

---

Active cases are doubling every 8 days (as of today). That's not great but also not terrible.

---

Quote:

---

Although the The COVID Tracking Project reported about 141,000 total U.S. cases on Monday, the experts think the number of infections symptomatic or asymptomatic in the U.S. was much higher. They believe there were between 289,000 and 12.8 million infections, with 1.1 million being the consensus estimate, implying that the experts think that only about 12 percent of all infections have been reported. This is in line with what they've reported for the past three weeks, when the share of reported infections has ranged between 9 percent and 12 percent.

---

Quote:

---

The whole point of taking necessary measures is taking them before they seem necessary.

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

culdeus said:

---

Seems more suitable for forum 16.

---

Is this the forum where only the people who believe this is the apocalypse can post?

---