Augie Ray
Very interesting STUDY of people's perceived risks of contracting #COVID19 when around those infected.
Models show that risks increase/decrease exponentially with distance, but many think it changes arithmetically. In other words, we “underestimate the increase of risk in an approach to an infected person” and “are not aware of how fast risk decreases in a movement away from an infected person.” (1/4🧵 )
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@augieray The interpritation here isnt a great one.
The wording is proper to say that we expect arithmetic growth but get exponential. But it is incorrect when the section starts with "in other words"... We do not **underestimate** the risk in approach, we misunderstand the growthrate of approach. This isnt the same because a linear growth can exceed an exponential growth during the relevant range of the function.
I attached an image as an example. Here I picked an agressive exponent to show the effect more clearly, the plot is of x vs x^5. Notice how during most of the graph the linear one actually significantly exceeds the exponential. This is my point, seeing linear growth will actually "overestimate" the danger of covid as you close distance not underestimate it, at least at first.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I don’t know what tool you’re using, but I think it’s wrong.
No its correct, feel free to check.
The blue bar shows ZERO growth until 0.5, which is not correct for something with exponential growth
No it doesnt. Just looks that way because of the resolution of the graph. The expopnential growth is monotonically increasing, that is to say, it is increasing at every point.
What is true is exponential growth is veryslow at first, slower than linear, and only accelerates later. What you see here is the exact correct behavior of those plots.
Growth means growth–both arithmetic and exponential growth patterns will show growth at every increment. There is no ZERO growth increment for something with exponential growth.
Yes and that is exactly whats happening in this graph, nowhere is there zero growth. You are confusing very slow growth with zero growth, not the same. Again plot it yourself youll get the same result.
Augie Ray
@freemo I don't know what tool you're using, but I think it's wrong. The blue bar shows ZERO growth until 0.5, which is not correct for something with exponential growth. Growth means growth--both arithmetic and exponential growth patterns will show growth at every increment. There is no ZERO growth increment for something with exponential growth.
Augie Ray
@freemo That being said, you're right that arithmetic growth can show more growth than geometric growth over the first increments (and I should've said that in my first response.) But in this case, with risks rising exponentially, I think the distances we're talking about our small and the larger finding is accurate--we underestimate how rapidly risks rise or fall with short distances.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@augieray You have no basis for asserting the distance is small... what are you basing that off of?
Depending ont he exact value of the variables linear growth can exceed exponential growth at any arbitrary point. It is just as possible exponential curve doesnt win out until the last 1 mm of distance.
The point is you can not say it overestimates or underestimates... All you can say is it incorrectly estimates., far away in overestimates the risk, but at some point arbitrarily close it will begin to underestimate the risk.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@augieray I didnt say anything about the findings or recommendations from the research. I only criticized your interpretation of it when you said "in other words...." which was wrong. The paper itself is probably fine in its own wording.
Augie Ray
@freemo Thanks. I understand. However, that doesn't change the findings and recommendations from the research. It might be that the first foot toward or away and infected individual doesn't change risks much, but we're only talking short distances here, ranging from 0.5 meter to 3 meters or so. The risks risk rise and fall very quickly with short distances toward and away from the infected.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
And yes the risks absolutely would "rise sharply" with distance, that is the nature of an exponent. Those ideas arent in question.
What is in question is that we underestimate this risk, or that it exceeds a linear estimation, which are not proper descriptions.
Augie Ray
@freemo From the study. Did you read it? (I feel like you're now arguing to argue. Your point was theoretical, not practical and related to the study.)
If you want to argue with the study authors, please do so. I am not going to engage in a rather silly discussion of whether inches or feet matter when the study is accurate in ways that matter (which isn't whether someone moving six inches changes risk but that people underestimate the importance of distance from infected persons.)
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@augieray I read it before you even posted it. I am a profession Research Scientist who worked on COVID and had some pretty big breakthroughs in my career... yes ive read it. No my point is not purely theoretical.
I am not arguing with the study authors, I am agreeing with, as I explicitly stated. I am disagreeing only with your interpritation, nothing more.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@augieray You are welcome. Best way to end a conversation you have nothing further to add to is simply by not speaking. Comes across a little passive aggressive otherwise.
Anyway thanks for the chat.
Augie Ray
@freemo Well, then, thank you for the correct. That can end this discussion.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
LOL Thanks for showing your toxicity, bye.
Augie Ray
@freemo Thanks for the criticism and for ignoring that I requested the conversation end. Blocking you (which I'm doing partially because you promote the idea Biden is racist, so frankly, I don't need any criticism or further input from you.) Best of luck to you.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
"not fond of diversity" falls under racist, so im glad we agree he was racist. I mean, starting your career witht he stated goal for much of the start of your career being to keep segregation alive because you dont want your white child growing up in a "racial jungle" (his words) absolutely qualifies as racist, and honestly that word for him is an understatement.
While he now has the good sense to hide his racism, and he exploits minorities instead of oppressing them publicly, anyone who pays attention to his slips ups can see he is still the same old racist joe today.
≠ Brett Stevens ≠
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.