Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

I don't know if there is such a thing as a "natural curve" as different countries are implementing different policies. One could get several bumps of different heights and different widths, before the curve tempers down. We are in uncharted territory.

I agree. The classic "bell curve" is a curve that shows up in several places, but usually it is associated with randomness. I remember one of the best visual examples of this at the Boston Museum of Science.

As the balls fall, they encounter bars at successive levels that cause the balls to break left or right. The result, time after time, is a classic bell distribution.

As soon as you have something that "skews the break" (so to speak), the bell curve is distorted. That is what is happening with this virus: intervention and policies and medicine are all changing the distribution. Then folks point to the changed distribution and say, "see - the projections were wrong."

It's kind of silly, actually.

[oxmixmudd]

And the US is over 1,000,000 cases ...

OTOH: new cases and new deaths appear to be down again, 2nd day in a row.

Something fishy with mexico. They say 8000+ have recovered - impossible given the death rate and the case histories. They did not even have 8,000 cases until 7 days ago, and the mortality is almot 10% down there.

[carpedm9587]

And the US is over 1,000,000 cases ...

OTOH: new cases and new deaths appear to be down again, 2nd day in a row.

I noticed that - but we've seen a drop before only to have it spike even higher. I think I'll wait for a window larger than two days before toasting...

Something fishy with mexico. They say 8000+ have recovered - impossible given the death rate and the case histories. They did not even have 8,000 cases until 7 days ago, and the mortality is almot 10% down there.

Haven't been tracking Mexico, but the numbers you cite do indeed sound fishy...

[shunyadragon]

I don't know if there is such a thing as a "natural curve" as different countries are implementing different policies. One could get several bumps of different heights and different widths, before the curve tempers down. We are in uncharted territory.

"Natural bell curves" do come with bumps irregularities, because they are indeed "natural bell curves" reflecting different variables in different regions and countries, but nonetheless they follow the same pattern more determined by the virus. Different beginnings in the different countries reflect the delay in the initial infection. China has completed their natural course for the most part, because they had at least a six week jump on other countries. There curve also had a later hump.

I previous described the peak of the curve as a jagged affair centered between late April and early May, and my prediction still stands. It will have an asymetrical form and taper off gradually as previous described.

carpedm9587's bell curve is not very natural and with few variables. Natural bell curves are not random, not uniform unless only a few variables, though they may be fractal with many variables as with virus infection curves.The only thing that is truly random is the occurrence of individual cause and effect events within the constrains of Natural Law and natural circumstances. The variability in chains of cause and effect events are fractal in nature, and the causes are Natural Laws and natural circumstances.

[Starlight]

As soon as you have something that "skews the break" (so to speak), the bell curve is distorted. That is what is happening with this virus: intervention and policies and medicine are all changing the distribution. Then folks point to the changed distribution and say, "see - the projections were wrong."

In case of interventions you just get a different bell-curve.

e.g. Australia:
AusCovid.jpg

NZ:
CovidNZ.jpg

Both countries pursued pretty successful quarantine-and-eliminate policies after cases began rising. The result was a slightly asymmetrical bell curve in both cases.

[firstfloor]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...101_story.html

[oxmixmudd]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...101_story.html

It's incredibly serious, but those in the Trump fantasy zone here (and elsewhere) will pretend it is no big deal.

[carpedm9587]

It's incredibly serious, but those in the Trump fantasy zone here (and elsewhere) will pretend it is no big deal.

My suspicion is that the card that will be pulled out is "yet another report with 'unnamed sources.' " Trump began pounding on this theme early on and members of his base, dutiful cult followers that they are, have taken it on. They conveniently forget that "unnamed sources" have a long and distinguished history in journalism. People will often only speak on the condition of anonymity out of fear for their jobs. Reputable journalists follow strict guidelines about the number of these sources required and the alignment/confirmation/independence required, to weed out the misinformation. It's not a perfect process, and there have been mistakes now and again. But most of the reporting has proven to be accurate and has given us insight into areas of government we would never see if we were left to the official channels, where lying and obfuscating are common. Journalists have gone to jail to protect their sources. "Unnamed sources" took down Nixon, exposed the Iran/Contra scandal, exposed Clinton's affairs and lies, exposed the Keating Five, took down Spiro Agnew, and exposed the house Post Office and Savings scandals, to name a few. It has been the central theme of many a story, and was formerly seen as a badge of honor: the champion reporter taking a stand against "big government."

But part of the process of casting doubt on the 4th estate is to flip this script and leverage the "lack of clarity" of this practice to cast doubt on journalism everywhere. After all, if they were honest, they would identify themselves, right? "Unnamed sources" is just a way to make up anything you want and publish it, right?

The irony is, the very people arguing for transparency and visibility into government are destroying the windows we have into that government and limiting themselves not only to official channels, but to getting their "news" from the most demonstrable liar of them all - our liar-in-chief - Mr. Trump. Oh...well...not JUST Mr. Trump. Also his media spokespersons at Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Infowars, and the rest of the sycophantic media outlets he both consumes and drives in an almost endless feedback loop.

I am SO ready for this circus to be over...

[MaxVel]

My suspicion is that the card that will be pulled out is "yet another report with 'unnamed sources.' " Trump began pounding on this theme early on and members of his base, dutiful cult followers that they are, have taken it on. They conveniently forget that "unnamed sources" have a long and distinguished history in journalism. People will often only speak on the condition of anonymity out of fear for their jobs. Reputable journalists follow strict guidelines about the number of these sources required and the alignment/confirmation/independence required, to weed out the misinformation. It's not a perfect process, and there have been mistakes now and again. But most of the reporting has proven to be accurate and has given us insight into areas of government we would never see if we were left to the official channels, where lying and obfuscating are common. Journalists have gone to jail to protect their sources. "Unnamed sources" took down Nixon, exposed the Iran/Contra scandal, exposed Clinton's affairs and lies, exposed the Keating Five, took down Spiro Agnew, and exposed the house Post Office and Savings scandals, to name a few. It has been the central theme of many a story, and was formerly seen as a badge of honor: the champion reporter taking a stand against "big government."

But part of the process of casting doubt on the 4th estate is to flip this script and leverage the "lack of clarity" of this practice to cast doubt on journalism everywhere. After all, if they were honest, they would identify themselves, right? "Unnamed sources" is just a way to make up anything you want and publish it, right?

The irony is, the very people arguing for transparency and visibility into government are destroying the windows we have into that government and limiting themselves not only to official channels, but to getting their "news" from the most demonstrable liar of them all - our liar-in-chief - Mr. Trump. Oh...well...not JUST Mr. Trump. Also his media spokespersons at Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Infowars, and the rest of the sycophantic media outlets he both consumes and drives in an almost endless feedback loop.

I am SO ready for this circus to be over...

No doubt there are people out there who are ' Trump is right no matter what', just as there are people who are 'Trump is wrong, always'. That said, I think your line of thinking here is unhealthy, because you're effectively poisoning the well - you're predisposing yourself to disbelieve a counter argument to a negative claim about Trump, before you've even examined the argument, or looked into the details of the claim itself.


No doubt Trump has said and done wrong things, just as he has (very infrequently ) said and done right things. In a highly politicised environment, and right now, a highly stressed one, how are we to tell the difference? Surely not by closing our ears and minds to one set of possibilities before we have even examined the evidence and arguments for them.

[carpedm9587]

No doubt there are people out there who are ' Trump is right no matter what', just as there are people who are 'Trump is wrong, always'. That said, I think your line of thinking here is unhealthy, because you're effectively poisoning the well - you're predisposing yourself to disbelieve a counter argument to a negative claim about Trump, before you've even examined the argument, or looked into the details of the claim itself.

What makes you think I would post a counter argument without looking at the claim? Do you think claims can only be examined here on TWeb?

No doubt Trump has said and done wrong things, just as he has (very infrequently ) said and done right things. In a highly politicised environment, and right now, a highly stressed one, how are we to tell the difference? Surely not by closing our ears and minds to one set of possibilities before we have even examined the evidence and arguments for them.

We tell the difference the same way we have always told the difference: examining the available evidence provided from as many sources as possible. But we individuals cannot always (or even usually) chase down sources and investigate claims personally. This is the very reason for the existence of the fourth estate, and it has mostly worked for us throughout U.S. history. It even has a mechanism for self-regulation: the diversity of media outlets all scrambling to be the first to report and very happy to expose mistakes made by other media outlets. Is it a perfect system? By no means. But, for the most part, it works. I wonder what those who seek to tear it down suggest it be replaced with?

[shunyadragon]

In case of interventions you just get a different bell-curve.

e.g. Australia:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]44220[/ATTACH]

NZ:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]44221[/ATTACH]

Both countries pursued pretty successful quarantine-and-eliminate policies after cases began rising. The result was a slightly asymmetrical bell curve in both cases.

Nice example of the "natural bell curves" of the infection of the COVID 19 over time. Though even I accept that our efforts reduce the fatalities and number of cases the curves do not actually demonstrate the degree of effect. The yellow line is very very hypothetical, and does not fit the history of natural bell curves in the history of viruses.

[Charles]

But that can't BE! Fox News is NEUTRAL!

I seem to remember that statement was made by someone who admitted he was biased

[carpedm9587]

I seem to remember that statement was made by someone who admitted he was biased

Hopefully, we all admit we are biased. The folly is to think that an individual can overcome their own bias through "honest self-reflection," and then go on to accuse anyone who challenges that amazingly naive POV as being "incapable of honest self-reflection." The whole point of bias is that it skews perception, including perception of ourselves. The person who depends on "honest self-reflection" to overcome their bias ends up thinking things like "Fox News is neutral." They also remain blind to their own bias, rendering discussions largely pointless. It wasn't until that set of exchanges that I came to realize just how pointless discussions with MM actually are.

[Charles]

[...]The folly is to think that an individual can overcome their own bias through "honest self-reflection," and then go on to accuse anyone who challenges that amazingly naive POV as being "incapable of honest self-reflection." [...]

That is very well put.

[Mountain Man]

U.S. intelligence agencies issued warnings about the novel coronavirus in more than a dozen classified briefings prepared for President Trump in January and February...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...101_story.html

And when did Trump close travel to China and Europe? Why, that would have been right around the time he was receiving these intelligence briefings, wouldn't it? Of course back then, liberals condemned his decision as racist and xenophobic, and Nancy Pelosi was parading around San Francisco's Chinatown telling everybody there was nothing to worry about.