4 ms·

I’m not saying there isn’t a report on Gavin’s desk with a bunch of lines on it, one of which extends to 25.5M in 8 weeks. Yes, if you double 1,000 14 or 15 ti

by zaroth 7y ago

I’m not saying there isn’t a report on Gavin’s desk with a bunch of lines on it, one of which extends to 25.5M in 8 weeks. Yes, if you double 1,000 14 or 15 times you get to 25.5M. The problem is that the population of California is 40 million. Even with basically unmitigated spread, your clusters will slow growth simply due to lack of new available uninflected contacts. Going from 1,000 people to 63% of your population in 8 weeks is frankly not a serious projection. Keep in mind this is a political document, not a scientific paper.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
btilly 7y ago
We have 1000 confirmed cases when most people who have symptoms can't get tests to confirm whether they have it. That is a long way from having only 1000 cases at present. We are at a significant multiple of that. Estimates of Wuhan at a similar point suggest that they had 7x official figures. We are likely about 5000-10000 in reality. Now what is the growth? Here is a trivial sanity check. From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#case-tot-outchina https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/... on a log scale it is clear that reported cases worldwide have been growing by a factor of 10 every 2 weeks. Projecting that out for 8 weeks starting with 1000 gives you 10 million. Starting with our likely 5000-10000 we hit all of California. At which point the limit is not that exponential growth doesn't get us there, but rather that the exponential curve hits saturation and breaks down. At which point you fit to other models based on past epidemics to get an estimate of where it tops out. Now 63% is in line with projections we've seen for weeks. That's 25 million people. if we believe the recent Lancet estimate that the fatality rate is 0.5-1.5% of people who get it, that is 1.25-3.75 million dead Californians. If we believe more conservative estimates, that's still a lot of dead people no matter how you slice it.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > that is 1.25-3.75 million dead Californians You are in error there. California has about 40 million people, 0.5 to 1.5% of 40 million is 200K to 600K. Mind you, that is still a lot of dead people, and that is just California, and assuming the health care system isn't going to be overrun in which case the 1.5% might be conservative.
- zaroth 7y ago
  A good basic sanity check is to look at the log-graph of total cases in any given country, not the whole world. Take Italy for example. You’ll see immediately the growth is not a constant exponent. Nor would even simple theoretical models expect it to be. It’s a logistics curve, or “S” curve, which means the exponent starts out at the highest value (once it takes off) and then is constantly decreasing over time. What that looks like in the logarithmic charts is a line which starts at a high slope and flattens over time. See, for example: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/
weare138 7y ago
But you have to keep in mind California is going to be an outlier in the number of infections, it has the highest population density in the country. Los Angeles County alone has more people in it than most US states.
TMWNN 7y ago
>The problem is that the population of California is 40 million. Even with basically unmitigated spread, your clusters will slow growth simply due to lack of new available uninflected contacts. "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." —Herbert Stein

by zaroth 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

btilly 7y ago

We have 1000 confirmed cases when most people who have symptoms can't get tests to confirm whether they have it. That is a long way from having only 1000 cases at present. We are at a significant multiple of that. Estimates of Wuhan at a similar point suggest that they had 7x official figures. We are likely about 5000-10000 in reality. Now what is the growth? Here is a trivial sanity check. From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#case-tot-outchina https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/... on a log scale it is clear that reported cases worldwide have been growing by a factor of 10 every 2 weeks. Projecting that out for 8 weeks starting with 1000 gives you 10 million. Starting with our likely 5000-10000 we hit all of California. At which point the limit is not that exponential growth doesn't get us there, but rather that the exponential curve hits saturation and breaks down. At which point you fit to other models based on past epidemics to get an estimate of where it tops out. Now 63% is in line with projections we've seen for weeks. That's 25 million people. if we believe the recent Lancet estimate that the fatality rate is 0.5-1.5% of people who get it, that is 1.25-3.75 million dead Californians. If we believe more conservative estimates, that's still a lot of dead people no matter how you slice it.

jacquesm 7y ago
> that is 1.25-3.75 million dead Californians You are in error there. California has about 40 million people, 0.5 to 1.5% of 40 million is 200K to 600K. Mind you, that is still a lot of dead people, and that is just California, and assuming the health care system isn't going to be overrun in which case the 1.5% might be conservative.
zaroth 7y ago
A good basic sanity check is to look at the log-graph of total cases in any given country, not the whole world. Take Italy for example. You’ll see immediately the growth is not a constant exponent. Nor would even simple theoretical models expect it to be. It’s a logistics curve, or “S” curve, which means the exponent starts out at the highest value (once it takes off) and then is constantly decreasing over time. What that looks like in the logarithmic charts is a line which starts at a high slope and flattens over time. See, for example: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

weare138 7y ago

But you have to keep in mind California is going to be an outlier in the number of infections, it has the highest population density in the country. Los Angeles County alone has more people in it than most US states.

TMWNN 7y ago

>The problem is that the population of California is 40 million. Even with basically unmitigated spread, your clusters will slow growth simply due to lack of new available uninflected contacts. "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." —Herbert Stein