<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:12 PM Rick Moen <<a href="mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com">rick@linuxmafia.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Quoting Texx (<a href="mailto:texxgadget@gmail.com" target="_blank">texxgadget@gmail.com</a>):<br>
<br>
[pond puzzle:]<br>
<br>
> Putting on sysadmin hat, the question should be asked WHY do they get this<br>
> problem wrong?<br>
<br>
The most common hypothesis is that people are so accustomed to _linear_<br>
trends that they picture those even where you stress that this is<br>
something dramatically different.<br>
<br>
To elaborate on that, human intuition was shaped pretty well be natural<br>
selection to avoid getting eaten on the savannah, but consistently<br>
misleads people in a more-complex world.<br>
<br>
Here's another puzzle to make the point: In a pre-SARS-CoV-2 scenario,<br>
you have a room where a random assortment of people gather. How many<br>
people must enter the room before there is a > 50% likelihood of at<br>
least two of those people sharing the same birthday? Take a guess based<br>
on intuition, and then I'll be glad to explain why your intuition on<br>
this puzzle (_and mine too, and everyone else's_) is wildly wrong.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For starters, most people (Including me) have NO IDEA how to START on this problem.</div><div>(Refer to my past rants about how math is incorrectly taught)</div><div>As a result, we would not get it "wrong" per se' because we would not be able to start on the problem in the first place.</div><div>In that case it would be a DIFFERNT wrong (wrong because the job wasnt done VS wrong by coming up with bad numbers).</div><div><br></div><div>I believe I have read about this, and while I dont remember the solution, I do remember that its counter intuitive.</div><div>(Ricks hint about backwards backs me up on the non intuition)</div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> If its doubling every day then going back a day its halving.<br>
> That known, its quite easy to find 50% 25% 12.5% .625% etc.<br>
<br>
Be careful: Like the epidemial concept of R-zero, the basic<br>
reproduction number, doubling rate is _completely_ context-dependent.<br>
It is not an inherent, fixed property of a disease organism, but rather<br>
a value observed specific to a time and place that depends on local<br>
conditions (including population density, part of the reason NYC is in<br>
such trouble).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I was describing cannot be used to predict future.</div><div>Its is ONLY useful in looking back after the whole disaster is over.</div><div>For parlortime chats about math after supper it works, because the question originates AFTER the pond is full.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, the un asked question is why are otherwise intelligent people wasting time with pond scum? (snicker)</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that the published numbers are a GROSS undercount (your choice which meaning of the word to choose, both apply)</div><div>I suspect this conversation has not covered a few things.</div><div><br></div><div>If one has the symptoms, can we just accept that as the positive rather than waiting for the lab?</div><div>If they have the symptoms and they are severe, they need to be treated anyway and will have the same load on healthcare.</div><div><br></div><div>It would be great to have good numbers like S Korea, but we dont and I doubt we ever will.</div><div>That horse has gone.</div><div><br></div><div>The negatives are nice, but if you only test once, how do you detect whether that person gets it later without repeated testing of the negatives?</div><div>(This is the key from S Korea)</div><div><br></div><div>By the undercounted rate for NY, 5 10 15 20 25 30 37 44. Thats SOME curve!<br></div><div><br></div><div>Also not covered in this thread are the 2nd & third bounces.<br></div><div><br></div><div>People being people, the lockdown will eventually end and as soon as it ends, bad behaviour will return, feeding a 2nd bounce and</div><div>likely a 3rd.</div><div><br></div><div>I was expecting Trump to lose if this thing keeps going into fall now Im not sure.</div><div>Its looking like he can use legal action to prevent stations from airing video of things he REALLY SAID.</div><div><br></div><div>Hes upset about socialism, but he wants to censor the press?</div><div><br></div><div>My father says "America LOVES a GOOD train wreck!"</div><div><br></div><div>Its a pitty Irwin Allen isnt still around. He would have LOVED this thing!<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> Everyone NEEDS a LOG!<br>
<br>
I'm not sure it did much for Margaret Lanterman.<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BloTVTziM6c" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BloTVTziM6c</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I had hoped that you would think "Ren & Stimpy"! </div><div><br></div></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">R "Texx" Woodworth<br>Sysadmin, E-Postmaster, IT Molewhacker<br>"Face down, 9 edge 1st, roadkill on the information superdata highway..."<br></div></div>