Covid 19 Part XXIII-33,444 in ROI(1,792 deaths) 9,541 in NI(577 deaths)(22/09)Read OP

yawhat? · 18-09-2020 08:12PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Dozens? There's a lad here who posts the most obsure and negative stuff he can find here some of it even fake, alas it seems even he has been unable to find dozens a few but dozens nah, not that I doubt he's searched fervently.

Fake? Does he have two wives?

zuutroy · 18-09-2020 08:13PM

stockshares wrote: »

So the increments can vary but still be considered exponential?

If R reduces for any time interval is it no longer considered exponential growth?

Apologies I'm no mathematician. I think I'm getting confused with to the power of (^).

Yes it's just exponential growth with a different exponent. The R number is literally an exponent. If you have R>1 you have exponential growth, if you have R<1 you have exponential decay.

tobefrank321 · 18-09-2020 08:14PM

Ficheall wrote: »

A 10% increase week on week is exponential...

The formula for exponential growth is x_t=x_0(1+r)^t.
A 10% week-on-week increase is of the form x_t=x_0(1+0.1)^t, where t is the number of weeks.

So, if x_0 (the number you start off with) were 1000, r=0.1 (your 10% increase ), then x_t for various t would be
x_0: 1000
x_1: 1100
x_2: 1210
x_3: 1331
x_4: 1464.1
x_5: 1610.51

In your example, your r (rate of increase) is apparently changing each week, going from 100% to 200% to 400%, ie.
x_0: 1000
x_1: 2000 (a 100% increase)

x_2: 6000 (a 200% increase)

x_3: 30000 (a 400% increase)

x_4: 270000 (an 800% increase)

This is definitely faster than 10% week on week, but it does not fit an exponential growth model.

Or, if you meant there would be a 100% increase on the zeroth week, followed by a 200% increase on the zeroth week, followed by a 400% increase on the zeroth week (which would be an odd way to go about things, but who knows...), you would have
x_0: 1000
x_1: 2000 (a 100% increase on the zeroth week)

x_2: 3000 (a 200% increase on the zeroth week)

x_3: 5000 (a 400% increase on the zeroth week)

x_4: 9000 (a 800% increase on the zeroth week)

...

and this would be overtaken by the 10% compounded growth some time around week 39.

What I presume you were thinking of was a 100% week on week increase (so r=1),

which would give

x_0: 1000
x_1: 2000 (a 100% increase)
x_2: 4000 (a 100% increase)
x_3: 8000 (a 100% increase)
x_4: 16000 (a 100% increase).

This is exponential growth, yes. So is a 10% increase week on week, albeit slower.

It might be useful to think of compound interest, and to be less quick to call others clueless.

I've already mentioned the time period.

It is generally accepted in the context of covid that expontial growth means a doubling within a short time period eg 3-4 days as happened in April. We are currently no-where near that. So a limited set of restrictions should be enough, ones that don't affect the economy significantly.

Just to correct you if r=1, week 1 is 1000 new cases, week 2 is 1000 new cases, week 3 is 1000 new cases etc.

If R = 2, week 1 is 1000 new cases, week 2 is 2000 new cases, week 3 is 4000 new cases, week 4 is 8000 new cases.

igCorcaigh · 18-09-2020 08:14PM

smellyoldboot wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2014/jul/20/the-meaning-of-exponential

This may help. It's hard to explain without "some" jargon. And the mechanics of the R number calculation I've never cared to look into, but I believe any R number below 1 represents exponential decline and above 1 equals growth. So at its most simple, the lower the better.

Oh, I just jumped onto the topic without reading the replies.

I'm no expert at all in this, but I love how everyone is getting a crash course in epidemiology and maths this year

Plumbthedepths · 18-09-2020 08:16PM

yawhat? wrote: »

Fake? Does he have two wives?

No idea he could have but his personal life is none of my business.

zuutroy · 18-09-2020 08:16PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I've already mentioned the time period.

It is generally accepted in the context of covid that expontial growth means a doubling within a short time period eg 3-4 days as happened in April. We are currently no-where near that. So a limited set of restrictions should be enough, ones that don't affect the economy significantly.

Accepted by who? People who are wrong?

igCorcaigh · 18-09-2020 08:21PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

It is generally accepted in the context of covid that expontial growth means a doubling within a short time period eg 3-4 days as happened in April.

If so, it's a misuse of the words exponential growth.

But I know what you mean. I have seen it mentioned on media by people who should know better.

"It will go exponential" etc.

JP Liz V1 · 18-09-2020 08:24PM

Funsterdelux wrote: »

Covid case in Blarney school

"We’ve also just been informed that another school in Cork has identified a COVID-19 Case. Parents of children in Scoil Mhuire Gan Smál in Blarney received the communication via email a few moments ago."

https://mobile.twitter.com/CorkSafetyAlert/status/1307010222641340420

Is Cork cases mostly from schools as in school kids?

Roger_007 · 18-09-2020 08:25PM

smellyoldboot wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2014/jul/20/the-meaning-of-exponential

This may help. It's hard to explain without "some" jargon. And the mechanics of the R number calculation I've never cared to look into, but I believe any R number below 1 represents exponential decline and above 1 equals growth. So at its most simple, the lower the better.

The R number is practically meaningless as a predictor of disease spread. It assumes that there are no controlling factors. and can only tell what has happened rather than what will happen.
If, for example, there was just one Covid outbreak in a community that had minimal contact with society in general e.g. a small island. The R number could initially appear to be very high but the controlling factor is that it would soon run out of people to infect or many of the islanders might have natural immunity.

TonyMaloney · 18-09-2020 08:27PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I've already mentioned the time period.

It is generally accepted in the context of covid that expontial growth means a doubling within a short time period eg 3-4 days as happened in April. We are currently no-where near that. So a limited set of restrictions should be enough, ones that don't affect the economy significantly.

Just to correct you if r=1, week 1 is 1000 new cases, week 2 is 1000 new cases, week 3 is 1000 new cases etc.

If R = 2, week 1 is 1000 new cases, week 2 is 2000 new cases, week 3 is 4000 new cases, week 4 is 8000 new cases.

You can't change the meaning of exponential based on context, sorry

Ficheall · 18-09-2020 08:27PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Just to correct you if r=1..

My r was the rate of increase as used in the exponential formula, as opposed to the R_0 often cited in relation to covid, but yes, I should possibly have changed to another letter to avoid confusion.

tobefrank321 · 18-09-2020 08:30PM

stockshares wrote: »

I thought exponential growth is like below

x_0: 1000
x_1: 2000
x_2: 4000
x_4: 16000

That is it. The complication with infectious diseases is time periods.

So saying covid 19 is growing exponentially makes little or no sense by itself.

Saying new cases are increasing exponentially every 3 days or a week or two weeks or a year makes a big difference. It tells you the speed of spread.

18-09-2020 08:31PM

I see that the government has stated the people from Dublin will not be allowed (“not be allowed”, not “advised against”) travel outside of Ireland from Dublin airport except for “essential” reasons.

How on earth is that to be policed?!?! Both the “essential reasons” part and the “from Dublin” part. Are airlines going to check, or Garda roadblocks to the airport requiring proof of address? But last time I looked dublin airport was in county Dublin.

What a shambles

yawhat? · 18-09-2020 08:31PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No idea he could have but his personal life is none of my business.

Fair enough. How are your two wives? One still working in retail and one still sitting on the couch getting the Covid payment?

TonyMaloney · 18-09-2020 08:32PM

I think we just have to accept that he'll never be able to grasp it, and just move on with our lives.

tobefrank321 · 18-09-2020 08:32PM

TonyMaloney wrote: »

You can't change the meaning of exponential based on context, sorry

Read my post above on time periods in relation to covid spread.

Saying its spreading exponentially without referencing a time period is pointless.

stockshares · 18-09-2020 08:34PM

tobefrank321 wrote: »

I've already mentioned the time period.

It is generally accepted in the context of covid that expontial growth means a doubling within a short time period eg 3-4 days as happened in April. We are currently no-where near that. So a limited set of restrictions should be enough, ones that don't affect the economy significantly.

Just to correct you if r=1, week 1 is 1000 new cases, week 2 is 1000 new cases, week 3 is 1000 new cases etc.

If R = 2, week 1 is 1000 new cases, week 2 is 2000 new cases, week 3 is 4000 new cases, week 4 is 8000 new cases.

What's the current R number for the Country overall and each County?

JP Liz V1 · 18-09-2020 08:35PM

spookwoman wrote: »

253 new cases - 116 in Dublin. 22 in Kildare, 14 in Cork, 14 in Galway, 13 in Donegal, 10 in Limerick, 10 in Louth, 9 in Mayo, 8 in Waterford, 7 in Wicklow and the remaining 30 cases are located in Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Kilkenny, Laois, Longford, Meath, Monaghan, Offaly, Tipperary, Westmeath.
1% are under 45 years of age
45% are confirmed to be associated with outbreaks or are close contacts of a confirmed case
61 cases have been identified as community transmission.
3 deaths

61 community transmission is high, that is a worry

Cork was doing well

Plumbthedepths · 18-09-2020 08:35PM

yawhat? wrote: »

Fair enough. How are your two wives? One still working in retail and one still sitting on the couch getting the Covid payment?

Both working thanks for asking. ;-)

stargazer 68 · 18-09-2020 08:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I see that the government has stated the people from Dublin will not be allowed (“not be allowed”, not “advised against”) travel outside of Ireland from Dublin airport except for “essential” reasons.

How on earth is that to be policed?!?! Both the “essential reasons” part and the “from Dublin” part. Are airlines going to check, or Garda roadblocks to the airport requiring proof of address? But last time I looked dublin airport was in county Dublin.

What a shambles

Someone said that earlier and I didn't believe them. So who is going to compensate people for their flights and hotels if they can't leave the country? No way it can be policed. I wouldn't carry proof of address if I was heading off on holiday!

stephenjmcd · 18-09-2020 08:40PM

After Ryan saying the airport authorities would use their discretion the DAA have said,

"A spokesperson for the daa, the operator for Dublin and Cork airports, said airport authorities have no access to any personal passenger information"

mean gene · 18-09-2020 08:40PM

tourists can fly in and travel around Ireland -what a sh1t plan

stockshares · 18-09-2020 08:40PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

61 community transmission is high, that is a worry

Cork was doing well

Community transmission is very vague though.

They are not tracing back to where people pickup the virus.

If they did they could give more accurate info such as attributing cases to Pubs, Hotels sports clubs etc etc.

Plumbthedepths · 18-09-2020 08:42PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

After Ryan saying the airport authorities would use their discretion the DAA have said,

"A spokesperson for the daa, the operator for Dublin and Cork airports, said airport authorities have no access to any personal passenger information"

They seem to be going out of their way to come across as incompetent and inept.

titan18 · 18-09-2020 08:42PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There was also the small matter of the Constitution.

Fcuk the constitution. If some **** are going to throw house parties, they should be made an example of imo.

You're either for stopping this virus and protecting jobs, or this freedumb and constitution sh1t.

caveat emptor · 18-09-2020 08:43PM

“We have to hope for a vaccine, no other way out of this.”

https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1306867584420151296?s=21

Plumbthedepths · 18-09-2020 08:44PM

titan18 wrote: »

Fcuk the constitution. If some **** are going to throw house parties, they should be made an example of imo.

You're either for stopping this virus and protecting jobs, or this freedumb and constitution sh1t.

lol.

bb1234567 · 18-09-2020 08:45PM

s1ippy wrote: »

https://www.joe.ie/news/entertainers-golf-society-say-they-adhered-to-safety-guidelines-during-trip-to-offaly-704110

The woman died during the trip and was tested for covid in post mortem.

Imagine if we were serially testing selected samples of the population to monitor it now that it's everywhere. Supermarket staff, teachers, meat plant workers, unemployed people, children. It would give us a way clearer picture of just how badly out of control this is in any given place.

Kind of odd she just died like that? Says it was not COVID 19 related even though she had it but what did she die of?

18-09-2020 08:47PM

stargazer 68 wrote: »

Someone said that earlier and I didn't believe them. So who is going to compensate people for their flights and hotels if they can't leave the country? No way it can be policed. I wouldn't carry proof of address if I was heading off on holiday!

Makes you wonder why they bother with something that is so utterly unenforceable

GooglePlus · 18-09-2020 08:47PM

titan18 wrote: »

Fcuk the constitution. If some **** are going to throw house parties, they should be made an example of imo.

You're either for stopping this virus and protecting jobs, or this freedumb and constitution sh1t.

"THEY TOOK URRR JOOOBS"

Covid 19 Part XXIII-33,444 in ROI(1,792 deaths) 9,541 in NI(577 deaths)(22/09)Read OP

Comments