By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Let us begin with today’s good news. The mean daily compound case-growth rates of Chinese-virus infections (Fig. 1) and of deaths (Fig. 2) continues to fall just about everywhere. It is these case-growth rates that governments chiefly use in determining how severe the control measures to manage the pandemic need to be, and how long they need to last, and whether, if they are relaxed, they can be relaxed some more or must be tightened again.

Fig. 1. Mean compound daily growth rates in confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from March 14 to April 9, 2020. PowerPoint slides showing high-quality images are here. [Mods, please link]
It is encouraging that in all the territories studied here, the daily compound growth rate of total confirmed cases is heading downward. But the mean daily rate for the world excluding China and occupied Tibet is still 7.2%. At that rate, the 1,521,745 confirmed cases up to yesterday would become 6.5 million over the next three weeks to the end of April, and 50 million by the end of May.
It is the daily case growth rate, more than any other number, that will decide whether governments introduce, maintain, modify, end or reintroduce lockdowns. During the early phase of the pandemic, it is the crucial number that governments and epidemiologists follow, which is why the seven-day average daily case growth rates are shown in these daily graphs.

Fig. 2. Mean compound daily growth rates in reported COVID-19 deaths for the world excluding China (red) and for several individual nations averaged over the successive seven-day periods ending on all dates from March 23 to April 8, 2020.
Those who support ending all lockdowns, allowing the old and the sick to die in large numbers and risking the general population’s health by overloading the healthcare system are prone to overlook, and even to try to argue against, the salient fact of any pandemic: that in its early stages its growth is strictly exponential. One multiplies each day’s total cases by the observed growth factor to obtain the next day’s total.
That exponential growth factor will not diminish except in one of four circumstances:
1. Decisive public-health measures control its transmission. South Korea is the prime example: if one acts soon enough to identify all cases, trace their contacts and isolate all those infected the rate of spread can be contained for long enough to permit testing and intensive-care capacities to be increased in good time, and one can avoid strict lockdowns. Even then, caution is needed: Singapore, which followed much the same approach as South Korea and initially with success, has now introduced the world’s strictest lockdown, because a second wave of infection has appeared.
2. An environmental factor (such as warmer summer weather) temporarily reduces the growth rate of the infection. With a new pandemic, one may hope that warmer weather will help, but responsible governments must be prepared in case it does not.
3. There are no more susceptible people to infect, whereupon the population has either died or acquired general immunity. At the time of writing, there are 1.6 million reported cases worldwide. Suppose that there are in fact 100 times as many cases as those that have been reported (for the truth is that we do not yet know, and the reported cases could indeed understate the true rate of spread by two orders of magnitude). In that event, just 2% of the global population is infected, leaving 98% still susceptible. Even if only one case in 1000 has been reported, 80% remain uninfected. So responsible governments cannot act on the basis that general immunity has been achieved. It has not been.
4. A vaccine is found. Even then, testing it for safety takes a year to 18 months, and we still have no vaccine against the common cold.
Governments cannot responsibly sit and wait for items 2 to 4. In particular, they cannot take the risk that summer weather will do their job for them. It may, or it may not.
The most important step, where a new pathogen is spreading and is proving fatal to some, is that the public authorities should act determinedly and at the very earliest possible moment to hinder the exponential transmission that is characteristic of any pandemic in its early phase.
For those who find it difficult to get their head around exponential growth, here, plotted to scale by worldometers.info, are the daily cumulative total confirmed cases outside China and occupied Tibet for the three weeks to March 13, the day before Mr Trump declared a national emergency.

Fig. 3. Cases of COVID-19 from January 22 to March 13, 2020 (worldometers.info)
Now, was the near-20% daily compound growth in reported cases over that period strictly exponential? Let us provide a visual demonstration. Fig. 3, showing cases in thousands, shows the graph derived from the exponential-growth equation shown on the slide. The equation is derived from the numbers of confirmed cases on January 22 and March 13, and the daily number of cases is then obtained from the equation and plotted:

Fig. 4. Cases of COVID-19 from January 22 to March 13, 2020 (calculated)
Figs. 3 and 4 are scaled and drawn to the same aspect ratio. The blue borders of the two graphs will align neatly with the edges of 16 x 9 PowerPoint slides. Download today’s slide-set from the link in the caption to Fig. 1. Now you can use a technique originally developed by astronomers to find moving satellites or planets in successive images of a field of fixed stars: the blink comparator. PowerPoint is a superlative blink comparator. Go to display mode and flick rapidly backwards and forwards between slides 3 and 4.
You will at once see just how very close, at all points, the curve of the actual, real-world data plotted to scale in Fig. 3 is to the idealized exponential-growth curve calculated and plotted in Fig. 4.
Information presented like this that is useful when briefing public authorities to show them that, based on the data, the case growth rate during the early stages of this pandemic, like that of any pandemic, is necessarily and quite strictly exponential.
For no small part of the spy’s dilemma that I discussed yesterday – how an agent in the field with no specialist knowledge can find ways of reaching the truth so as to give sound intelligence to his superiors – involves assessing the available data, weighing its reliability, verifying it, cross-referencing it with other available data or known information, working out what it means and, no less importantly, presenting the conclusions in a form that the politicians will be able to appreciate, and on the basis of which they can take sound decisions.
Governments cannot afford to act on any assumption other than that the daily rate at which the total cases will grow is likely to continue on the exponential-growth curve for a month or two yet unless one of the reasons 1-4 discussed earlier comes into play.
Why does exponential growth occur during the early stages of a pandemic? The reason is that each infected person will, roughly speaking, pass the infection on to the same number of uninfected people, who will, roughly speaking, acquire or resist the infection to the same degree, and pass it on in their turn to approximately the same number of people each.
I shall end today’s posting by briefly considering the situation in Sweden, which has not imposed a strict lockdown and yet shows much the same case growth rate as countries that have imposed lockdowns. In fact, Sweden is currently coincident with the global mean.
It is tempting to assume that because Sweden got away without lockdowns we could have gotten away without them too. This is where the dispassionate advisor will think very carefully. Herb Mayer, the deputy director (intelligence) of the CIA, with whom I worked during my time with HM Government, used to say that 99% of the work of any intelligence officer, and of his agency, is handling, storing, assessing, cross-indexing, processing and, above all, thinking about information hard and dispassionately, regardless of one’s own opinion.
How might the Chief of the Joint Intelligence Committee (whose office was just along the corridor from mine at 10 Downing Street) advise HM Government, which would very much like to bring the current lockdown to an end, about why Sweden has (so far, at any rate) gotten away without the economically-crippling lockdowns Britain has adopted?
One clue – again using a visual aid – is the difference between the population densities of the major cities. Here is Stockholm from the air: low-rise, and low-density.

And here is London from the air: high-rise, and very high density.

The rate at which an infection transmits is the product of two vital quantities: the infectiousness of the pathogen and the average number of people an infected person can be expected to meet over a given time.
That is why those in London and New York who have modelled the spread of the Chinese virus recommended lockdowns: the populations there are dense enough to ensure a very much higher mean contact rate, and thus compound rate of transmission, than in Stockholm.
And that is why one cannot point to the lack of a lockdown in Stockholm and deduce that, therefore, no lockdowns were or are needed in cities where far larger populations are crammed in and piled high at far greater population densities.
The UN’s Agenda 2030 policy of cramming everyone into ever-more-densely-packed cities is a recipe for disaster in any pandemic. It is asking for trouble. We are going to have to make sure that the environmental extremists who have until now dominated policymaking among innumerate governments are no longer heeded in this as in many other respects.
Today’s sudden Singapore lockdown is a warning that, even when our own lockdowns end, they must be ended cautiously, or a second wave of infection will emerge. In Singapore, which resisted lockdown but has now been compelled by events to introduce it, any breach of the stay-indoors, keep-your-distance rules incur a fine of $10,000 and/or six months in prison for a first offense, and double those values for a second offense. Several thousand citizens were given police warnings on the first day of the lockdown.
I shall end today’s update with an image from the European mortality monitoring agency. It shows excess mortality in various European countries for the past week. It gives the lie to the suggestions made by some commenters here that there will be no excess mortality from the current pandemic. As ever, keep safe. On the data, it is those who take more precautions than the rest who are more likely to survive the pandemic unscathed.

Fig. 5. Excess mortality in England, France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy and the Netherlands for the 14th week of 2020.
Ø So as not to make this website too coronacentric, I shall be providing the graphs of case-growth and death-growth rates daily, but shall only write these commentaries with additional information twice a week.
Link to PPTX file of diagrams.
Other good news
https://www.targetliberty.com/2020/04/look-at-how-ridiculously-wrong-all.html
The current trend of beds needed for COVID-19 in New York is nowhere near what the models predicted. The professional forecasters all projected that beds would be a multiple of the beds actually needed.
Not a regular poster but I’ve an adequate memory and enough reading comprehension to get by.
Numerous complaints as to Monckton’s methodology have been raised and not answered. Probably because there isn’t a compelling answer, given what he’s arguing to be true. That there’s no discernable break that can be definitely attributed to lock-down policies isn’t helpful to a compelling response and that there simply isn’t enough information to predict or conclude anything, absent hard information as to the true number of infected, is about the last nail.
That this is till being argued about and there are camps on each side of the divide, might proves nothing other than the shut-downs have left people too much times on their hands.
Equally possible is what’s been suggested by otheers: the analysis is simply an argument to cover political policy.
Since I came to the conclusion almost a week ago that we’ve been snookered, I’m going with #2.
A few things to remember, the raw numbers are dodgy. Denmark numbers should be used to compare with Sweden. Almost the same cases per million but half the deaths. Is it because Denmark classifies the cause of death of those with another serious disease as having died from that disease while every death in Sweden of a COVID19 sufferer is listed as a coronavirus death? Maybe it’s the real number of cases in Sweden is underreported. Maybe Denmark’s shut down was better at protecting the more vulnerable people.
Its not whether isolation works or not. This argument is more nuanced. Can we get the same reduction in spread but still have everyone go to work? Is it better to just take enough action to not overwhelm hospitals? Can we keep the isolation up until a cure or vaccine is found?
A checkout girl in my suburb, her mother who worked in a pharmacy and brother working at the local McDonalds caught the virus from her dad last week. He was a baggage handler. There have been no new cases in the past few days related to them or the other infected baggage handlers. It doesn’t spread that rapidly if precautions are taken, as would have occurred in those jobs (should have in the case of the baggage handlers) but not in the family home.
And letting shitty numbers do the talking is not the way to go.
I am just going to leave this here:
“Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016
“But I am a thinking libertarian, experienced at the most senior levels in government, and I am therefore reluctant to pay heed to every passing armchair epidemiologist”
I am very pleased for you My Lord, but being “experienced at the most senior levels in government” does not necessarily make you wise about grass roots society and economics: Brexit referendum and the London champy sippers ?
Mind, you may be wise about the above in which case I am pleased again. So please also do some analysis of the economic and social impact created by lockdowns. This is surely not a “at any cost” exercise is it?
In reality we are all embarked on mission impossible. This is all about making the least wrong decision which may pan out to be very wrong, either way.
Cheers
M
Monckton z Brenchley
“United Kingdom: The UK introduced universal BCG immunization in 1953. From then until July 2005, UK policy was to immunize all school children aged between 10 and 14 years of age, and all neonates born into high-risk groups. The injection was given only once during an individual’s lifetime (as there is no evidence of additional protection from more than one vaccination). BCG was also given to protect people who had been exposed to tuberculosis. The peak of tuberculosis incidence is in adolescence and early adulthood, and an MRC trial showed efficacy lasted a maximum of 15 years.[59] Routine immunization with BCG for all school children was scrapped in July 2005 because of falling cost-effectiveness: whereas in 1953, 94 children would have to be immunized to prevent one case of TB, by 1988, the annual incidence of TB in the UK had fallen so much, 12,000 children would have to be immunized to prevent a single case of TB.[60] The vaccine is still given to at risk healthcare professionals.”
“Republic of Ireland: The BCG was mandatory for all children until 2015 when it was discontinued as a result of global supply issues.”
Poland: The BCG vaccine is mandatory.
Brazil introduced universal BCG immunization in 1967–1968, and the practice continues until now. According to Brazilian law, BCG is given again to professionals of the health sector and to people close to patients with tuberculosis or leprosy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCG_vaccine
When using mathematics to describe real world phenomena one should always bear in mind that they are only approximations. The case number in a finite population can never be strictly exponential, and no one made that claim. A better model is probably given by so called logistical growth. It is the solution to a first order autonomous differential equation, where the derivative is a second order polynomial in the accumulative case number with two roots. The first one is usually taken to be zero, in this case to represent no infections at all, while the other is the capacity barrier representing the total number of possible infections, that may be the entire population.
A logistical curve never gets started without an initial seed, but then it takes off with something that resembles exponential growth as pointed out by Monckton. At some point the curve ceases to be convex and becomes concave as the derivative approaches but never attains zero.
5.955 cases were detected in Poland, 181 people died, 318 recovered. You can see a large percentage of patients cured in relation to other countries.
Chris Monckton, Would you be so good as to lay out your model of governmental “intervention”? You have written a lot over several days and perhaps I missed it, but without knowing your plan and how you would implement it, it is difficult to know what you intend to accomplish by all your analyses and forays with commenters.
Since governors in the U.S. have been left to their own devices to establish policies, we have the luxury of choosing from among the options that best fit each locality. I for one am grateful that we aren’t locked into any one national policy, and even though most of the orders look similar, the blandly intrusive order to “stay at home” for the good of our neighbors is a damper on private enterprise that has at least been left to individual states. A better model, imo, is that employed in Arkansas, where no “stay-at-home” order has been issued. Instead, Governor Hutchinson has opted to close only the riskiest areas of public intercourse:
He also eliminated elective surgery, and claims to have had only 80 hospitalizations as of Wednesday 8th. Arkansas has 8,000 hospital beds available and staffs ready to tend the sick.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/arkansas-gov-asa-hutchinson-on-why-he-hasnt-issued-a-stay-at-home-order
Gatherings are limited and restaurants must restrict numbers of diners. And local townships and mayors have the ability to enforce curfews at their discretion. But no quarantines have been mandated, and businesses remain open.
Any more draconian measures than this are disingnuous, he claims, and I agree. People are going about their lives in myriad ways IN SPITE of the artificial lockdowns imposed by more restrictive governments, as indicated by the designation of liquor stores as “essential services”. Marijuans shops open for business in Washington.
The number of “confirmed cases” of Coronavirus in Arkansas today climbed to 1127.
What is it you would propose? If for example citizens in the U.S. were to undergo mass antibody-testing to show that we were already immune and non-infectious, would you direct those people to resume their jobs. What specific constraints would you keep in place?
Isn’t it time (even now with peak deaths still ahead of us) for countries to begin plotting their pathways to recovery?
No lock down in S Korea-
“South Korea has tested 140,000 people for the coronavirus. That could explain why its death rate is just 0.6% — far lower than in China or the US”
So easy to cherry pick day to suit the argument.
Not sure what the source of your quoted is
South Korea has carried out over 510 k tests which has produced over 10k positive cases.
There have been just over 200 deaths – so CFR is ~2%.
South Korea were slightly “lucky” in that around 65% of the first 8k cases were found among a secretive religious sect so they were effectively partly self isolating anyway. They tested all 210k members of the sect.
Info missed out in above report.
“The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious previous illnesses. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality”
https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/sars-cov-2-decessi-italia
—
“50% to 80% of test-positive individuals remain symptom-free. Even among the 70 to 79 year old persons about 60% remain symptom-free, many more show only mild symptoms”
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375
—-
“A study in Nature Medicine comes to a similar conclusion even for the Chinese city of Wuhan. The initially significantly higher values for Wuhan were obtained because a many people with mild or no symptoms were not recorded’
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-
Not just the Media
“The latest figures from a special report by the German Robert Koch Institute show that the so-called positive rate (i.e. the number of test positives per number of tests) is increasing much more slowly than the exponential curves shown by the media and was only around 10% at the end of March, a value that is rather typical for corona viruses. According to the magazine Multipolar, there can therefore be „no question of a dangerously rapid spread of the virus“.
https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/coronavirus-regierung-ignoriert-daten
RKI also warned about autopsies that could be dangerous. Autopsies are important to know if someone died with or by Corona.
https://www.bccourier.com/died-with-or-from-a-corona-infection/
Exponential growth of infected persons may occur in major cities but not for national populations. In the UK the deviation from exponential growth was discernable from 19th March (3269 confirmed vs 4000 predicted) and has continued to date (74K confirmed vs 2 million predicted). An exponential curve would predict 100% UK population infection (67 million) by 24th April, at which point we will have achieved Willis’s Gompertz curve. Clearly the real infection growth curve is sigmoidal, the mean of which may be composed of different inflection points and slopes – possibly for different population density areas. The trick is predicting those slopes and inflection points – which no models have acheived to date.
Exponential growth ‘threats’ may have a place in promoting aquiescence with lock-down procedures but we need much better modelling to examine options for lifting the current restrictions.
Population density of Stockholm areas
e.g. Sodra Station: 26,900 per sq km,
Roslagstull: 30,100 per sq km etc.
Stockholm also has an underground system.
What was that about doing your research?
” Dr. Püschel explains: „In quite a few cases, we have also found that the current corona infection has nothing whatsoever to do with the fatal outcome because other causes of death are present, for example a brain haemorrhage or a heart attack. Corona in itself is a „not particularly dangerous viral disease“, says the forensic scientist. He pleads for statistics based on concrete examination results. „All speculations about individual deaths that have not been expertly examined only fuel anxiety.“ Contrary to the guidelines of the Robert Koch Institute, Hamburg had recently started to differentiate between deaths „with the“ and „by the“ coronavirus, which led to a decrease in Covid19 deaths”
“During the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, Püschel self-induced over 50 deceased corona patients by early April 2020 [10] and stated in the Hamburger Morgenpost that no single person with no previous illness had died of the virus in Hamburg until then. [11] “We do not have to have a personal fear of death,” he said on April 9, 2020 when he appeared on the talk show of Markus Lanz. [12]”
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Püschel
as more info comes out we can see the lock down was unnecessary.
” Dr. Püschel explains: „In quite a few cases, we have also found that the current corona infection has nothing whatsoever to do with the fatal outcome because other causes of death are present, for example a brain haemorrhage or a heart attack. Corona in itself is a „not particularly dangerous viral disease“, says the forensic scientist. He pleads for statistics based on concrete examination results. „All speculations about individual deaths that have not been expertly examined only fuel anxiety.“ Contrary to the guidelines of the Robert Koch Institute, Hamburg had recently started to differentiate between deaths „with the“ and „by the“ coronavirus, which led to a decrease in Covid19 deaths”
“During the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, Püschel self-induced over 50 deceased corona patients by early April 2020 [10] and stated in the Hamburger Morgenpost that no single person with no previous illness had died of the virus in Hamburg until then. [11] “We do not have to have a personal fear of death,” he said on April 9, 2020 when he appeared on the talk show of Markus Lanz. [12]”
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Püschel
This might be the start of the end of this crisis:
https://www.radboudumc.nl/en/nieuws/2020/radboudumc-researchers-publish-new-insights-into-covid-19
Back to some best estimates. (Better than the Oxford study).
From the German study: Infection Fatality Rate, IFR, is 0,37%.
1 death from corona virus means 270 infected, on the same time.
37 deaths from 10000 infected.
How many infected 18 days earlier?
New York early doubling rate, 3 days.
1 to 36 deaths give 6 doublings, 18 days.
From 270 infected to about 10000 infected in 18 days.
People begin to change habits when 37 people have died.
Curve begins to bend.
Curve bends more when measures are set in.
So, how many cases are detected.
Sweden as an example.
870 deaths mean 234900 infected cases.
About 10000 are detected.
1 of 23 infected cases is detected.
How about other countries?
I`m not trying to build a myth, so you need not believe in this.
But it gives some illustration of the uncertainty.
Some inaccuracy in my calculation.
1 to 32 deaths give 6 doublings over 18 days.
312 infected will give about 10000 infected after 18 days.
18 days is the average time it takes from infection to death.
I was going to write that Stockholm, Sweden had lowish CV rates due to its citizens practicing social distancing as evidenced by this live web cam from the centre of Stockholm:
http://www.webbkameror.se/webbkameror/stureplan/index.php
It updates about once per second. You can see very few people walking around and I though, clever Swedes, doing their bit for social distancing without being compelled to do it.
I though I’d quickly check google street view to compare previous foot traffic in the same spot:
https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3362007,18.0724163,3a,82.5y,134.08h,94.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRSsIFeJskyFBqBbkqvnj5Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Oh dear! No people!
It looks like having a low population density in a capital city actually means fewer people per square area!
How would have thought such a thing!
For more Stockholm live webcams see here:
http://www.webbkameror.se/webbkameror/stockholm/index.php
You can do the same for most parts of the world.
Stockholm webcam looks reasonably busy just now, not crowds but still busy compared with my UK town at the moment.
There are no reliable mortality statistics for COVID-19 in Poland. That was the case with the flu. In Poland, there has always been a tendency not to enter in the death certificate that it occurred due to infections. Nobody is interested in this. Death from infection means a scandal in the hospital, an obligation to report it to the sanitary department. Easier to enter the reason for death: “respiratory failure”.
The Author does not agree with lock-downs, being a Libertarian, while supporting Government action.
There is a major conflict there – the badly damaged economy, reflected in the already decrepit state of health services over decades of criminal neglect, will not recover “spontaneously, unknowably,” as von Hayek parodied Bernard Mandeville’s Anglo Dutch “Fable of the Bees”. That Hayek, Friedmanite mantra is in fact the reason the health system is so easily overwhelmed, requiring drastic lockdowns, touted over successive HM Governments. Just look at Thatcher’s IEA, Institute of Economic Affairs, a Hayek confab.
The test for libertarians – any economic recovery will need a New Bretton-Woods conference as in 1944 with FDR after the destruction of WWII. This time with China, and a Marshal Plan as some EU politicos mentioned. That only with reinstating FDR’s Glass-Steagall 1934 Banking act which triaged the banks from speculative junk. This will not happen spontaneously, in an unknowable fashion, rather with political economic intent.
COVID is sharpening this intent. Economic policies which left economies prostrate belong in ancient feudal times.
Lockdowns mean soon intensive care for the physical economy. Any responsible Government that intends to hold office much longer, must be looking really hard at the neo-lib/neo-con mantra’s with disdain.
Polish doctors who have returned from Lombardy say that health care in the rich northern Italy is at a very high level. Despite this, they could not cope with the number of cases.
I believe the total values per country will follow the Gompertz curve, which is a standard growth model used in epidemiology, amongst others. This is an S shaped function, and has been used to model Covid 19. In the early stages, it looks exponential, but once the peak is passed, it passes to the saturation stage. Coefficients in the model suggest peak position and size.
Here’s the daily UK data using the Gompertz curve for both total cases (blue) and deaths (red)
And the daily changes for the same.
This suggests we are about the peak of the UK total cases as the function begins to slow and reach its upper value.
More details of the Gompertz applied to Covid 19 is here.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.05447.pdf
Watching the News today it was stated that the highest incidence of CV19 per head of population is in Gwent. I would class Gwent as semi-rural. Certainly 381 per sq km isn’t particularly high, on a par with Denmark at 341, both less than a tenth of Greater London. Is lockdown making a difference in Gwent?
Pearls before swine?
All too much for one or two who simply miss the basic maths, and have opinions…
….. or the fact there is no cure other than natural and that this virus will kill some people pre disposed to that outcome. if they are exposed to it.
I assess that all this is assumed by Monkton as obvious, in his excellent discourse on the inherent problem of pandemic management. This is about deciding how to at least limit the spread of incurable disease to affect when and where the inevitable deaths should occur, also how to reduce deaths from reducing avoidable infection and making whatever supportive treatment can be made available as widely as possible before it is needed, whether successful or not. I think that summarises the problem for governments, plus the economic and social utility it places on the lives lost verus the conomic damage of lock down, which also kills people, from instant poverty where there are no reserves to call on, and other more direct reasons.
As part of maths tutoring I did do some thing for Richard et al, explaining how the simple maths of a exponential spread of infection work, with an introduction to how that will vary as the rate and number of re-infections reduces, and perhaps increase again in a less infectious secondary phase if isolation is widely used, but clear areas are not kept separated. This is how we do it, simply put.
keptttps:
I used High School maths to explain WHY the natural initial progression must be purely exponential at a steady rate in a large population, because it is a geometric progression, also how the rate and number of reinfections must reduce as the uninfected population diminishes, due to demography, actual infection producing immunity in the available cohort of people remaining to infect, and the difficulty in infecting them due to isolation protection – so the rate of reinfection r and the number of onward transmissions n must both decline from the start, at rates appropriate to each demography. The decline will also be exponential once r<1, for the same reasons the rise was.
Hope this is of use to someone, even helps teach maths.
And yes, makes clear the lack of understanding of the pointless half baked arguments, some attacking the writer rather than the writings, rather than clarifying the key and very correct points that Monkton makes, if you make the effort to extract the basics from the tcompplex real world examples which, self evidently, requires technical discipline to do, that some above lack.
THat's why I tried to address the basics of APs and GPs for the less mathematically able to keep it simple (and avoid ar^(n-1) etc. )
It addresses the reasons why r and n must vary through an epidemic, and how this may vary by location due to natural demography and local action. Still exponential, but different parameters. Obs ;-).
Not intended to outforecast much better models, or even be absolute, just explain the basics of how the spread of infection must vary exponentially, up and down, must vary, what major factors affect the models, and why to stay the f*** indoors.
I hope it is useful to some who want to understand , but don't have degrees involving hard sums.
If it adds no value I'll delete it from Vimeo, if there are good reasons you advise. If it's wrong I'll change it. It's already been "improved" once. It's not the absolute numbers, but the way they change and why. And why to stay indoors.
Comment welcome, please share if its has merit.
It was wrong from the beginning of the epidemic to assume that infectious diseases were under control and medicine was in full control over them. Some people still think so, but they are wrong about this virus. Perhaps this is even indirectly related to an increase in ionizing radiation due to a decrease in solar activity.