famous last words of those who still don't grok exponential growth

Viruses don't exhibit true exponential growth, they run their course and peak, plateu, then fade away as fast as they spread. Rinse and repeat over time.

You're confusing exponential growth with a fixed exponential constant. A virus spreads by a multiple on a daily basis given the number of cases, exposures and probability of infection--even when the numbers slow down (which isn't happening). Enjoy reflecting on this two weeks from now.

Riiight . . . it's not flatten the curve, it's flatten the unflattenable exponential zoom to infinity and beyond?

Or it's the curve and it's multivariate with things like growing immunity population or even antiviral drugs.

I mean, I shouldn't have to spell out the doctor obvious clause but sure.

Growing immunity would play a factor in the probability of infection, which in turn, lowers the growth factor (in this case, multiplier).

We are not even remotely close to achieving herd immunity, and most drugs at present are hail mary solutions.

Neither do true circles or squares! Eep!

Thanks for the info, buts not related to the growth of viruses.

Oh, but it does. Models rarely conform to the real world with platonic levels of perfection, yet they are still more or less accurate and useful. Thanks for playing

Oh, but they are not more or less accurate ontologically. A model is only as good as the data going in and the assumptions driving the projections .

As we can see from the original model that predicted 2million dead, wasn't even close to accurate for a number of reasons. The main being the model assumed no changes to social interaction.

I hope this helps, but I am sure it won't.

Ontological accuracy is a very nebulous phrasing--I'm fully in materialist "natural philosophy" here, not comparing platonic substances with real world instances or taking a metaphysical stance on mathematical nominalism or dualism.

But that is irrelevant to your larger point, as data driving projections has nothing to do with the above.

The whole point of the early models was to illustrate what could potentially happen if nothing was done. Which is also the point of this meme, as plenty of people have opposed changing social interactions on the grounds that "it's only killed a few people" (increase that by a multiplier every week or two).

"The whole point of the early models was to illustrate what could potentially happen if nothing was done. Which is also the point of this meme, as plenty of people have opposed changing social interactions on the grounds that "it's only killed a few people" (increase that by a multiplier every week or two)."

Now you are walking back from a statement claiming models are accurate to a statement couched in uncertainty.

Further, the country of Sweden has not implemented severe social distancing policies like we see in Italy or stay at home orders like we see here, and Sweden is not exhibiting anything close to the growth of infections the United States is. In fact on per million population basis, they have nearly half the infections the United States does.

This only goes to show that models, while certainly useful and being the best humanity can produce, can lead provide misleading and inaccurate projections.

You're reading an awful lot into "more or less accurate and useful." Next you're going to tell me
that the statement "this building will burn down if the fire department doesn't put it out" is inaccurate if the fire department puts it out.

Well not to quibble but I would say it appears you prematurely excluded other potentialities. Is the fire department the only option for extinguishing the fire?

Also, being close to 1.5 million infections worldwide is pretty much on par if not exceeding exponential growth models I was looking at a month ago. Some places have changed their strategy, some not enough, and some not at all.

This aged well. R0 really is a thing.