• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
1926Buckeyes said:
It was a chart depicting the insane growth in death that happened in the first 100 days. How many people died from HIV in the first 100 days after the initial death? That's the only comparison here.
Click to expand...
But that’s a complete and total lie. It may be a snapshot of 100 days, but certainly not the first 100 days. That would have happened in mid to late February.
 
Upvote 0
1926Buckeyes said:
???

It takes 27 days to reach 100 deaths (.27 deaths per day).

52 more to reach 10,000 (190 deaths per day).

14 more to reach 50,000 (~2800 deaths per day).

7 more to reach 88,500 (5500 deaths per day).

What do you call that?
Click to expand...

Good luck with this. Apparently, if it's not doubling every day, it's not considered exponential.

Oh8ch said:
In its fundamental sense exponential simply implies a line that curves upwards above a straight line.

From day 27 to 79 folks were dying at a rate of 192 per day
From day 79 to 93 at a rate of 3,571 per day
From day 93 to 100 at a rate of 12,642 per day

That is a pretty nasty curve. Even if it isn't "doubling" every "x" number of days I think you can see that if it continues we have a significant problem on our hands.

Put another way, if that line continues to curve as indicated it is only a matter of time before everybody is dead.
Click to expand...

Oh, thank god. Do you know which day? I want to make sure I'm righteously fucked up when it happens.



You know what...I better just get lit everyday just to be safe.
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch said:
In its fundamental sense exponential simply implies a line that curves upwards above a straight line.

From day 27 to 79 folks were dying at a rate of 192 per day
From day 79 to 93 at a rate of 3,571 per day
From day 93 to 100 at a rate of 12,642 per day

That is a pretty nasty curve. Even if it isn't "doubling" every "x" number of days I think you can see that if it continues we have a significant problem on our hands.

Put another way, if that line continues to curve as indicated it is only a matter of time before everybody is dead.
Click to expand...
You have numbers wrong for two periods.

From Day 79 to Day 93 deaths went from 10,000 to 50,000 (40,000 deaths or 2,857 per day for 14 days, or about 80% of what you said)
From Day 93 to Day 100 deaths went from 50,000 to 88,500 (38,500 deaths or 5,500 per day for 7 days about 43.5% of what you said)

Again the rate of increase is what's important, not the total amount of increase. Deaths increased 400% in the two-week period from Day 79 to Day 93, while only increasing 77% in the one-week period from Day 93 to Day 100. Now, if we knew what the total deaths were on Day 86 (midpoint between Day 79 and Day 93), then we could have three one-week slices to compare rate increases.
 
Upvote 0
Fungo Squiggly said:
Good luck with this. Apparently, if it's not doubling every day, it's not considered exponential.


Oh, thank god. Do you know which day? I want to make sure I'm righteously fucked up when it happens.



You know what...I better just get lit everyday just to be safe.
Click to expand...

You're a terrible accountant. If you were any good, youd have noted that the commentary on the chart was the "common cold" analogy.. and then the chart didn't have that on it. (Though I think its more often compared to seasonal flu, which isn't on there either)
 
Upvote 0
AKAK said:
You're a terrible accountant. If you were any good, youd have noted that the commentary on the chart was the "common cold" analogy.. and then the chart didn't have that on it. (Though I think its more often compared to seasonal flu, which isn't on there either)
Click to expand...

Like I even looked at the charts. Charts are picture books for people that don't understand math.
 
Upvote 0
AKAK said:
You're a terrible accountant. If you were any good, youd have noted that the commentary on the chart was the "common cold" analogy.. and then the chart didn't have that on it. (Though I think its more often compared to seasonal flu, which isn't on there either)
Click to expand...
Neither is old age or heart disease. What a shitty chart.
 
Upvote 0
Bid for more small-business funds blocked by Senate Dems
Senate Democrats blocked a Republican proposal to add $250 billion to small-business coronavirus relief funds on Thursday after demanding protections for minority-owned businesses and money for hospitals and state and local governments, NBC News reports:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had sought unanimous consent to pass the emergency funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, but Democrats objected, claiming McConnell was politicizing the push for more small-business money.

“I am afraid that this unanimous consent is basically a political stunt," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said following McConnell's request. “This unanimous consent was not negotiated, there was no effort made … so it won’t get done. It's not going to be enacted.”

The state's other Democratic senator, Chris Van Hollen, also criticized McConnell for what he called his "go it alone" approach that "violates the spirit" of the bipartisan coronavirus response efforts.

“The majority leader knew full well there was not agreement," Van Hollen said. "This was designed to fail.”

Cardin and Van Hollen offered an alternative proposal, which drew McConnell's objection; a senator objecting in person would prevent any legislation from passing by unanimous consent. The Senate then adjourned until Monday.
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
Bid for more small-business funds blocked by Senate Dems
Senate Democrats blocked a Republican proposal to add $250 billion to small-business coronavirus relief funds on Thursday after demanding protections for minority-owned businesses and money for hospitals and state and local governments, NBC News reports:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had sought unanimous consent to pass the emergency funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, but Democrats objected, claiming McConnell was politicizing the push for more small-business money.

“I am afraid that this unanimous consent is basically a political stunt," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said following McConnell's request. “This unanimous consent was not negotiated, there was no effort made … so it won’t get done. It's not going to be enacted.”

The state's other Democratic senator, Chris Van Hollen, also criticized McConnell for what he called his "go it alone" approach that "violates the spirit" of the bipartisan coronavirus response efforts.

“The majority leader knew full well there was not agreement," Van Hollen said. "This was designed to fail.”

Cardin and Van Hollen offered an alternative proposal, which drew McConnell's objection; a senator objecting in person would prevent any legislation from passing by unanimous consent. The Senate then adjourned until Monday.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
Bid for more small-business funds blocked by Senate Dems
Senate Democrats blocked a Republican proposal to add $250 billion to small-business coronavirus relief funds on Thursday after demanding protections for minority-owned businesses and money for hospitals and state and local governments, NBC News reports:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had sought unanimous consent to pass the emergency funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, but Democrats objected, claiming McConnell was politicizing the push for more small-business money.

“I am afraid that this unanimous consent is basically a political stunt," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said following McConnell's request. “This unanimous consent was not negotiated, there was no effort made … so it won’t get done. It's not going to be enacted.”

The state's other Democratic senator, Chris Van Hollen, also criticized McConnell for what he called his "go it alone" approach that "violates the spirit" of the bipartisan coronavirus response efforts.

“The majority leader knew full well there was not agreement," Van Hollen said. "This was designed to fail.”

Cardin and Van Hollen offered an alternative proposal, which drew McConnell's objection; a senator objecting in person would prevent any legislation from passing by unanimous consent. The Senate then adjourned until Monday.
Click to expand...
Can we just fucking fire them all and start with people who actually want to fix things?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top