Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Indeed, but I think this is aiming for a least worst outcome, not a best outcome. The maths is just horrendous.
Last night I did a quick and dirty spreadsheet based on my guess that there were 10,000 people actually infected in the country, with the infections doubling every 6 days, which is what it seems to be, give or take.
That gives 40,000,000 infected on May 22nd - sometime around when I think the experts today said the peak is going to be. Now, by then some will have had the virus and recovered and, sadly, some will have died. But due to the nature of the exponential growth of the spread, those numbers will actually be relatively small.
Now, as I say, this is very quick and dirty, and makes no allowances for how much the spread can be throttled back when greater social distancing tactics are brought into play, but I'm struggling to see how this can't be truly horrible.
I know I've been banging on about this for a couple of weeks now like some sort of crackpot - I so desperately want to be wrong.
View attachment 120965
What I think you're missing in these maths doubling up is the infected people that recover fully and are no longer infected. You are not subtracting them from your doubling. That will also grow exponentially, all be it much more slowly. We don't know how long some people may contract then no longer be transmitters from the virus. If it's 7 days as an example, then you will be subtracting those people from the growth.