The World-O-Meter Thread

[Jokodo]

Not per capita. We had 1,321 deaths yesterday, while Italy had the equivalent of 4,136 daily deaths and Spain had whopping 5,950. Now, one good thing about Italy is that their new cases are decreasing while the new deaths are more or less flat. So they are turning a corner, but are still at a very high level. Spain's new cases look flat, and the daily deaths are increasing, but slowly, so there is some cause for cautious optimism there too. But again, their levels are much higher than ours.

One more thing. More than half (680) of yesterday's deaths have been in NY. That state (and especially the city) is getting pummeled. New Jersey is second in raw numbers despite lower population (8.9 million) than some other states due to proximity to NYC.

New York's per capita figure of new deaths is basically Lombardy level already, and rising.

 

[Elixir]

Looks like we're back on the increase trail.

Not per capita.

Yes per capita. 18 deaths per million citizens on April 2, 22 yesterday and 23 as of this morning. That is a per capita increase in deaths. For a day, we actually had a slight drop in the daily death count, but that too is back on the increase trail.
No, we are not yet in the saturation league of Italy or Spain with 243/m and 240/m respectively - but our new cases are almost 3x the sum of theirs and we are following similar increase curves to both of them, and they are not NEARLY done. We should be bracing for at least a ten-fold increase in total deaths in the next few weeks and much more before this thing runs its course. Yes, 250/m would be a dream. Get ready for 700-1000 dead per million citizens.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I noticed last night that the data now includes tests/million pop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not per capita. We had 1,321 deaths yesterday, while Italy had the equivalent of 4,136 daily deaths and Spain had whopping 5,950. Now, one good thing about Italy is that their new cases are decreasing while the new deaths are more or less flat. So they are turning a corner, but are still at a very high level. Spain's new cases look flat, and the daily deaths are increasing, but slowly, so there is some cause for cautious optimism there too. But again, their levels are much higher than ours.

Per capita doesn't mean that much here. The thing is, much of America doesn't have that much foreign travel and thus didn't get much infection at first. At this point the hottest spots are almost all in red parts of America--areas that haven't shut down. The fire is going to continue to rage while the -Rs sacrifice granny on the altar of the rich.

 

[Elixir]

I noticed last night that the data now includes tests/million pop.

Right, Kris. Seeing those columns appear gave me a weird feeling... mentioning testing levels is automatically a political statement now, and political statements shouldn't be embedded in statistical presentations, right? Of course it is totally relevant. And again, USA numbers among the nations listed are about where Trump probably finished in his class at Wharton - explaining why he threatened the school with a suit if his grades got out.
Trump making EVERYFUCKINGTHING a political football is a fogging machine extraordinaire, another means of suppressing actual information and supplanting it with absurd declarations and nonsensical orders.

 

[Elixir]

04-04

Another day, another uptick.

 

[Derec]

Another day, another uptick.

But the increase is no longer exponential, which is a good thing. The daily cases look very linear and daily deaths are a bit more erratic but clearly are not exponential any more.
My state by the way had only ~400 new cases and 10 new deaths today. We are doing relatively well here, even if Metro Atlanta obviously has the most cases due to about half the population of GA being in the metro area. There is a huge hotspot in rural Dougherty County where Albany, GA is though. They are the county with most deaths so far, even though Fulton (where most of the City of Atlanta is) has the most cases. However, Fulton has almost 12x the population of Dougherty, but only 40% more cases.

From here.

 

[Derec]

Per capita doesn't mean that much here.

Of course per-capita means much. You can't compare raw numbers for entities with different population sizes. That goes for countries, states and even county level data (see my post right above this one).

The thing is, much of America doesn't have that much foreign travel and thus didn't get much infection at first.

That may have been the case very early on, late January through February, but since then most transmission has been community spread. Besides, almost every state has at least one international airport and smaller regional airports service connecting flights from bigger hubs. Most of US by population if not square mileage is well exposed to international and transnational travel. Or at least it was until shit hit the fan and flights were scrapped.

At this point the hottest spots are almost all in red parts of America--areas that haven't shut down. The fire is going to continue to rage while the -Rs sacrifice granny on the altar of the rich.

The hottest spot right now is New York. Very blue. As is New Jersey, which is second-hottest. Michigan is a bluish-purple state while Louisiana is a reddish-purple state and they are getting quite hot too. It is true that most red state governors have been slow to institute measures and have made baffling choices such as declaring in-person church meetings as "essential services", but right now red states are not the hottest spots by any means.

 

[Derec]

Looks like we're back on the increase trail.

Not per capita.

Yes per capita.

You edited the post weird. The "not per capita" refered to this

Looks like we're back on the increase trail. Beating the world in more categories than ever, including the all-important daily death count.

We are definitely not "beating the world" in daily death counts or most other categories when we look at per-capita numbers.

For a day, we actually had a slight drop in the daily death count, but that too is back on the increase trail.

The daily death numbers fluctuate more than daily cases. And yes, both are still increasing, but what is important is that they no longer increase exponentially.

No, we are not yet in the saturation league of Italy or Spain with 243/m and 240/m respectively -

Italy has peaked and Spain is peaking due to social distancing and staying at home, not due to saturation. Neither Italy nor Spain are anywhere close to saturation.

but our new cases are almost 3x the sum of theirs

And our population is about 3x the sum of theirs.

and we are following similar increase curves to both of them, and they are not NEARLY done.

I think theirs is worse, especially regarding deaths. Especially Italy was in very dire straits for weeks regarding overburdened hospitals. I do not foresee it getting nowhere near that bad here.

We should be bracing for at least a ten-fold increase in total deaths in the next few weeks

We will probably go above 200 by the end of the month. But by then we will have peaked.

and much more before this thing runs its course. Yes, 250/m would be a dream. Get ready for 700-1000 dead per million citizens.

1000/million is 327,000 total dead. While definitely not great, it's not terrible either. For comparison, US has ~2.8 million deaths per normal year.

 

[lpetrich]

The World-O-Meter site breaks down the US by state for each day, but it does not give anything further about each state, as it does for each nation. It would be nice to see if any US states are leveling off, for instance.

Italy's new cases have been slowly declining over the last two weeks, as is Switzerland's, and Spain's and Germany's and Belgium's and Holland's new cases have flattened out over the last week.

I don't know whether or not to believe the official numbers about China given what sort of government it has - that nation's numbers seem very optimistic.

Iran seems to be slowing down, and the UK may also be. Turkey is in a rise phase, as is Canada.

South Korea seems to be doing well. After a rise from Feb 19 to about Mar 1, and then a fall to about Mar 10, that nation has had a roughly constant small number of new cases each day. But the number of cases is slowly declining since its peak around Mar 10.

 

[blastula]

The NY Times shows state data with graphics that show whether the new case rate is slowing or incrrasing.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

 

[ZiprHead]

Michigan now number three.

 

[ronburgundy]

Another day, another uptick.

But the increase is no longer exponential, which is a good thing. The daily cases look very linear and daily deaths are a bit more erratic but clearly are not exponential any more.

Both cases and deaths are still growing exponentially. Here are the #s for the last 5 days:
New cases per day: 24,742 26,473 29,874 32,284 34,196
Deaths per day : 912 1049 974 1045 1331

Growth in cases is increasing by about 2,000 per day, trending toward over 50,000 per day within 2 weeks.
Other than a underlined high spike on April 1st (the virus was trying to fool us), the rate of growth in deaths per day is increasing, just not by a constant amount but an average of 100. As of noon, today had 700 new cases on track another new record of 1400 in a day, trending toward 2,000 per day in a week.

By the end of April, the US is likely looking at totals of around 1.5 million cases and 60,000 deaths, not counting any effects of healthcare system overload.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Derec]

Both cases and deaths are still growing exponentially.

No they are not. Just because there is growth, does not mean it's exponential growth.

Growth in cases is increasing by about 2,000 per day,

Which would be linear, not exponentiell.

By the end of April, the US is likely looking at totals of around 1.5 million cases and 60,000 deaths, not counting any effects of healthcare system overload.

How does that show exponential growth?

 

[fromderinside]

Which would be linear, not exponentiell.

Common sense requires a reading of growth rate is increasing by 2000 a day not number of cases is increasing by that number. So it is exponential.

By the end of April, the US is likely looking at totals of around 1.5 million cases and 60,000 deaths, not counting any effects of healthcare system overload.

How does that show exponential growth?

Again common sense requires one look at numbers and rates today against those claimed by end of month. If one did that it suggests conclusion of exponential rate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another day, another uptick.

But the increase is no longer exponential, which is a good thing. The daily cases look very linear and daily deaths are a bit more erratic but clearly are not exponential any more.

For a while the data out of China looked about linear, also--because that was how many they could test per day.

Of course per-capita means much. You can't compare raw numbers for entities with different population sizes. That goes for countries, states and even county level data (see my post right above this one).

We are still in the early growth phase--at that point the population size is of little relevance, it's all about spread.

That may have been the case very early on, late January through February, but since then most transmission has been community spread. Besides, almost every state has at least one international airport and smaller regional airports service connecting flights from bigger hubs. Most of US by population if not square mileage is well exposed to international and transnational travel. Or at least it was until shit hit the fan and flights were scrapped.

Keyword: community. It only spreads to other cities by travelers, not by community spread. Red America didn't get infected in the initial wave, it's lagging behind the hotspots but that doesn't mean it's not going to do the same thing.

At this point the hottest spots are almost all in red parts of America--areas that haven't shut down. The fire is going to continue to rage while the -Rs sacrifice granny on the altar of the rich.

The hottest spot right now is New York. Very blue. As is New Jersey, which is second-hottest. Michigan is a bluish-purple state while Louisiana is a reddish-purple state and they are getting quite hot too. It is true that most red state governors have been slow to institute measures and have made baffling choices such as declaring in-person church meetings as "essential services", but right now red states are not the hottest spots by any means.

Actually, the place with the highest per capita number is a county in Idaho (although this is a few days old.) New York and New Jersey have a lot of cases--but a lot of population. They do not have the highest per capita rates.

 

[ronburgundy]

No they are not. Just because there is growth, does not mean it's exponential growth.


Which would be linear, not exponentiell.

Ah, so you don't know what exponential and linear mean. Most people don't. They get confused between increase in X versus an increase in the rate of increase in X.

Linear growth means that for every unit of time the same raw number of cases is added. It would mean that if last Saturday there were 30,000 new cases, then there were 30,000 cases today and everyday in between. It means the number of cases grows by a constant amount, but the amount per time unit does not grow.

Exponential growth means that each time unit grows by a larger amount than the prior time unit. It doesn't matter if the amount of that increase in the the growth rate is itself constant (e.g, that each day the growth = yesterday's growth + 2000). The fact that there is any number in the equation other than todays growth = yesterdays growth means it's non-linear. IOW, if it was linear growth, then all those per day numbers I presented would be the same or at least not in a systematic increasing direction. Note that the total number of cases would still be growing each day, but that is true for all types of growth.

end of April, the US is likely looking at totals of around 1.5 million cases and 60,000 deaths, not counting any effects of healthcare system overload.

How does that show exponential growth?

Because linear growth would mean that the total number of new cases and deaths 3 weeks from now would be the same as they were in the prior 3 weeks. Since March 15 (3 weeks ago), there have been about 275,000 new cases and 8,400 new deaths. Linear growth would mean that 3 weeks from now you just take today's totals and add those numbers, thus getting 311,357 = 275,000 = 586,357 cases and 8,452 + 8400 = 16,852 total deaths. IOW, the non-linear trends in the past 3 weeks predict 3 times as many cases and 4 times as many deaths than would be predicted if there was actually linear growth.

 

[Derec]

Common sense requires a reading of growth rate is increasing by 2000 a day not number of cases is increasing by that number. So it is exponential.

No, it is not. Do you even understand what "exponential" means? It's a very curious function, where the rate of change is itself exponential. In fact the "natural" exponential function has the distinction of being its own derivative and antiderivative. That means for exponential growth the daily numbers would have to be exponential as well.
Daily cases increasing by a roughly constant number would indicate a quadratic increase, not exponential, since the rate of change of a quadratic function is linear.

Again common sense requires one look at numbers and rates today against those claimed by end of month. If one did that it suggests conclusion of exponential rate.

No it does not. Do you even know what "exponential" means?

 

[Derec]

Ah, so you don't know what exponential and linear mean. Most people don't. They get confused between increase in X versus an increase in the rate of increase in X.

I do. You apparently do not.

Linear growth means that for every unit of time the same raw number of cases is added. It would mean that if last Saturday there were 30,000 new cases, then there were 30,000 cases today and everyday in between. It means the number of cases grows by a constant amount, but the amount per time unit does not grow.

True. And if the amount per time increases linearly, the total amount increases quadratically.

Exponential growth means that each time unit grows by a larger amount than the prior time unit.

Wrong. Exponential growth means that the amount increases by a constant ratio.

It doesn't matter if the amount of that increase in the the growth rate is itself constant (e.g, that each day the growth = yesterday's growth + 2000).

Of course it matters! Exponential growth is a particular type of growth. To wit, the daily rate of change is also exponential. If each day's growth increases by a constant number you get a quadratic increas, not exponential.

The fact that there is any number in the equation other than todays growth = yesterdays growth means it's non-linear.

Not every non-linear growth is exponential. Specifically, a linear daily growth is definitely not exponential because the integral of a linear function is quadratic.

IOW, if it was linear growth, then all those per day numbers I presented would be the same or at least not in a systematic increasing direction. Note that the total number of cases would still be growing each day, but that is true for all types of growth.

Still does not make it exponential though.

Because linear growth would mean that the total number of new cases and deaths 3 weeks from now would be the same as they were in the prior 3 weeks. Since March 15 (3 weeks ago), there have been about 275,000 new cases and 8,400 new deaths. Linear growth would mean that 3 weeks from now you just take today's totals and add those numbers, thus getting 311,357 = 275,000 = 586,357 cases and 8,452 + 8400 = 16,852 total deaths. IOW, the non-linear trends in the past 3 weeks predict 3 times as many cases and 4 times as many deaths than would be predicted if there was actually linear growth.

That does not show exponential growth.