5 ms·

The official infection and death numbers in China appear to be completely fabricated as they followed an almost perfect quadratic progression: https://old.reddi

• ggm 7y ago
  A zero karma two day old account says something. Please. You're trolling.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• eganist 7y ago
  For all you know, this is the best-case outcome with countermeasures.
  • corona-chan 7y ago
    I would have expected the rolling out of various countermeasures as the epidemic spreads to have a visible effects on the figures. It's weird that it fits a predictable progression so smoothly.
• knzhou 7y ago
  This is a breathtakingly stupid abuse of data analysis. Which of course means it's at the top of Reddit's r/bestof, with thousands of upvotes. Let's take a look at that paper you linked. The supposedly damning point is that you can fit the data extremely well with a quadratic, in the sense that R^2 is high. However, the data points are rapidly increasing, and because of the way R^2 works, that means only the last ~4 data points have any impact on R^2 at all. The statement of the paper boils down to the claim that you can fit 4 data points on a smooth curve accurately using a 3-parameter fit whose form you got to choose. This is obviously true, for any 4 data points. It's too bad that reason goes out the window whenever China is involved.
  • corona-chan 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your point. There are far more than 4 data points fitting the curve smoothly. Shouldn't the data have a lot more variation for something like this?
    • knzhou 7y ago
      I'm responding to the paper you linked, where you assert "this has happened before". The story with the Reddit link is similar: at the time of the posting, only ~6 data points actually mattered for R^2, so you would expect R^2 to be very high. (The fit is extremely poor for the first ~6 data points, but that doesn't affect R^2 at all.) After the last date on the chart shown, the R^2 begins to plummet. This is also exactly what you would generically expect. Amusingly, both of these totally ordinary results are taken as evidence for a conspiracy: the 6 points that fit are taken to be fabricated, and the subsequent points are taken to be fabricated with the sole purpose of throwing off people on Reddit. But if you can claim evidence for a conspiracy no matter what the numbers are, has something gone wrong in your reasoning process? You be the judge!
      • corona-chan 7y ago
        I would say the numbers deviating from the model after it has been publicized and discussed online are still evidence against the data being fabricated, but weaker than it could have been because there were definitely Chinese people watching those discussion on social media, and so the idea that they might have corrected the mistake and started adding more variation isn't that unlikely.
        • russli1993 7y ago
          wow you make it sound like someone is sitting in front of a computer, watching reaction of foreigners on reddit, and tweaking the numbers on an excel sheet. Really? You know, Chinese ppl online really hoped it wasnt a quadratic curve. If the government was just making up the numbers and trying to hide the problem, why not make it linear, or square root? why pick quadratic, such terrifying curve...why say its cornavirus at all? just say its flu, its pneumonia, its a terrible flu season. If all the government cares about is money and economy, why shut down the cities at all and destroy the economy in the processes. When economy is down, business will go bankrupt, people will be pissed, and maybe they will revolt. Why go through all this trouble and not deflect the issue or take no responsibility at all. Isn't all about protecting people and keep people from getting sick? oh btw, now that model doesnt fit anymore, the reported number is higher than the predicted model