bjack on 20/3/2020 at 05:11

---

Cooking wine can be full of salt sometimes. Be careful. As for “who talks like that?” post you had earlier... people who don't speak English as a first language and are trying to seed weeds into our garden. Ignore them.

Best of health to everyone. Best of luck. I sincerely wish you all well. I hope your lives will remain whole and prosperous. I hope your governments will do the right thing, whatever that may be. There has been some recent good news. There has been some recent bad news. Neither balance out each other, nor should they.

My advice is to play some old FMs you haven’t played in years. Or catch some old flicks on the boob tube (for non-US people, this is just a slang for TV, but you probably already know this... sorry)

Don’t dwell too much on this virus. It will drive you crazy, as with all problems in life. It will pass, not without sorrowful consequences, but it will pass.

bjack on 20/3/2020 at 06:28

---

IDK, but wasn't a recent post by Zylon posted a day ago? I hope my silly post here will make Zylon Bane post, in order to prove existence.

lowenz on 20/3/2020 at 10:33

---

Another route, another interpretation of this phenomenon:

(https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/new-blood-tests-antibodies-could-show-true-scale-coronavirus-pandemic?rss=1)

The fact that antibodies to NL63 don't also react to SARS-CoV-2 proteins is encouraging for another reason, he adds. Some viral diseases, such as dengue, can cause more serious symptoms if a person has been previously exposed to a related strain of the virus and already has partial immunity. Existing antibodies can react to the related invader and trigger a dangerous overreaction, a phenomenon known as an antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Some researchers have suggested ADE might explain why the virus is more deadly in the elderly and less so in children, who have had less exposure to other coronaviruses.

Renault on 20/3/2020 at 14:07

---

Well, that governor specifically said that he thought ~56% of all California residents would get the virus within the next 8 weeks. I don't understand where he's getting his numbers from, because that type of infection rate is nowhere near how it is anywhere else in the world.

China has 80,000 cases total, but they have 1.4 billion people. This guy is talking about 20 million cases in California alone. Some type of explanation behind those numbers would have been nice, because they don't appear to make sense.

Also - why does anyone give a fuck about Zylonbane? Because he certainly doesn't care about you.

Gryzemuis on 20/3/2020 at 14:24

---

As I wrote before, most people don't understand what exponential growth really means. :)
One example is that if something grows 1% per year, that's still exponential growth.

But let's look at this example.
Governor talks about growing from 1000 to 20 million in 2 months. Can that happen ?

The number I've been using myself is doubling of the number of infected every 3 days.
It's hard to check precisely. Because the number of infected heavily depends on the number of tests done.
And once the number of infected grows beyond a small number, there aren't enough tests anymore. And (relatively) fewer people get tested. And the grow will seem to slow down. For a short while. Because after that the exponential grow will continue as before.
But let's continue using that number: doubling every 3 days.

Anyone else familiar with binary math ? It comes natural to me, because I've used it a lot in my work.
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192.
So after 10 doublings, the number goes from 1 to 1024. Let's make that 1 thousand.
If the number of infections doubles every 3 days, that means after 30 days, the number of infections will have gone up by 1000 times.
Let that sink in.
So if California has 1000 infected today, after 30 days, it will be 1 million infected.
Now another factor of exponential growth most people don't realize. Growth at the start of the curve seems fast. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc. Those numbers are impressive, but they are comprehensible. But when you look at the numbers later on, those numbers will be staggering.
If you have 1 million infected after 30 days, and the number doubles every 30 days, then after 60 days you will have 1 BILLION infected.
After all 1000 x 1000 is 1 million. 1000 x 1 million is 1 billion.

Of course the number of infected in California can't go to 1 billion.
There aren't 1 billion people in California to begin with.
But more importantly, the more people that are infected, the fewer people are not infected.
And the harder it becomes for the virus to find people that have not been infected yet.
When we approach the saturation point, growth will slow down.

But anyway, my point is: when the rate doubles every 3 days, it's far from impossible to go from 1000 to 25 million in 2 months.


This is assuming that the number "doubling every 3 days" stays constant.
If it turns out that the virus starts doubling only once every 7 days, or once every 30 days, the growth will slow down.
That's the plan. Do lockdowns, go in social isolation, find the infected earlier (more testing), everything to get that number down.
If we wouldn't take any measures, and the number stays at doubling every 3 days, then you go from 1 to 1000 in 30 days, to 1m in 60 days and "everybody" (1B) in 90 days.