Warning: Exponential Numbers of the Swine Pandemia

page: 2
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mexican against NAU
 



THIS IS WRONG, NOT PRECISELY AN EXPONENTIAL BEHAVIOR!



In Mexico confirmed deaths are only 15.
The virus is not "very" lethal.
And this is not, precisely, an exponential behavior.

You don't say 40 infected will precisely infect 40, each one.
40*40= 1600
Instead 40 give it to, let's say 3 each.
40*3=120
One out of those 120 won't infect 120 people!

Although the virus could rapidly spread, most people, are in fact, not dying from it.

Visit this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 1-5-2009 by Jim11]




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I'll be pretty surprised if these numbers hold up under real world conditions.

First the news media is spending lots of time fear mongering. After all, fear sells. So, the awareness in this country has already been raised.

Second, many institutions already have pandemic plans. I know that mine does and we'll see people working from home before the numbers get very large.

Third, the numbers that are being posted may or may not have any bearing in reality. We don't know how many cases have already occurred and have not been reported. We don't know the backlog of samples that need to be analyzed. We don't know how easily this is transmitted from person to person. Most of the secondary infections have occurred with in the immediate vicinity of care givers and/or friends.

Fourth, if true exponential growth starts to happen, I'm pretty sure that there will be quarantine efforts similar to those seen in Mexico.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mexican against NAU
People in Mexicali, México, where I live, think this flu is non-issue.

I say better prepare.

You can act in any of this ways. I recommend the second.

1. Panick sex, shopping and senseless acting.
2. Preparing food and water, and a nice place to ride the wave while the cleansing goes on, putting brain over emotion.
3. Act carelessly thinking this is a non-issue until it's too late.



Those who think I am trying to spread fear, belong to the third kind. I wish all the people would belong to the second kind.

The first, go crazy, the second might ride the wave, and the third are fools.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim11
reply to post by Mexican against NAU
 


In Mexico confirmed deaths are only 15.
The virus is not "very" lethal.
And this is not, precisely, an exponential behavior.

You don't say 40 infected will precisely infect 40, each one.
40*40= 1600
Instead 40 give it to, let's say 3 each.
40*3=120
One out of those 120 won't infect 120 people.

Although the virus could rapidly spread, most people, are in fact, not dying from it.





Need to check TODAY's numbers. 159 CONFIRMED DEATHS at the moment, only in México.

Don't expect people to do your job. There is Google to check your information. Please do so.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Mexican against NAU]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I did the maths myself yesterday on another thread (strange, no one seemed very impressed back then), but rather than trying to work on growth so far (which is unknown really, since we don't know how many are actually infected, etc) I started with 1 infected person & assumed he infected just 3 people per day.

Each of the people he infected similarly infected 3 people per day, etc.

Now, fair enough I didn't allow for the 2 day incubation period until the infectee becomes contageous, but then again weigh that off against the fact I'm only counting 3 people per day becoming infected.

The numbers go like this:

Days Infected People
1 1
2 4
3 16
4 64
5 256
6 1024
7 4096
8 16384
9 65536
10 262144
11 1048576
12 4194304
13 16777216
14 67108864
15 268435456
16 1073741824


How can it be that such a virulant strain of flu that is present in one of the most populated cities (Mexico City) in the World can have only infected 3000 people?

It can't have.

Either the numbers of infected are substantially higher than reported, or this is a load of hullabaloo over nothing.

I guess we'll find out over the next few days.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I'm not gonna panick yet.
Time will tell what the numbers really are.
When there is some real exponential growth and we are in the hundreds of thousands and people are dropping like flies then I'll be concerned.

Right now sure people are getting infected. But here in the US the actual death rate is much lower than in other countries. More than likely because we have better sanitation and stricter personal hygiene than in other countries.

What worries me is the death toll in third world nations. And even then I wouldn't be too worried in some of the hotter countries that influenza don't do well in.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Isn't mexico quite a hot country?

It seems to have done alright there.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The deal is that this flu is so mild that it is hardly worth reporting and the paper work involved...

So does it come back even stronger?
Does it mutate and return deadly in a few months?
Is this the False Flag we have heard so much about?
Does that False flag give people a false sense of security thereby creating something deadly in a few months after this begins it's second wave?
Is this simply a way to make more money for the antiviral/vaccine elite?

I feel that it is seriously underreported now, and of the numbers you posted in the OP, they do not even begin to cover the individuals who even on this forum have become ill and will NOT report it or go to a Dr.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


STARRED!

Exactly my point.

Isn´t it better to prepare, then?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Isn't mexico quite a hot country?

It seems to have done alright there.


Death toll in mexico according to the news is 150.

Normal flu kills alot more people yearly than that. 150 is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of people that die from normal flu.
Hundreds of thousands die annually from the flu. During a pandemic millions die worldwide.

Like I said. I'll wait and see before I act.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mexican against NAU
 


No one, besides the mexican toddler has died outside of Mexico.

So it is probably not as "lethal" as some people are speculating.

Out of 100,000,000 mexicans, 159 suspected deaths is not much.

Yes, the number of SUSPECTED deaths is 159, "officially" though.

15 have been confirmed by lab analysis.

And again, it is not exponential, when you have 2,999 infected, let's say I'm one of those... I won't infect 2,999 people myself!

Even if it was very contagious, people with treatment are neither dying, nor are close to be death.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I think your conclusion is a little off. As has been stated, a big part of your "exponential growth" is a result of raised awareness. Th number of confirmed cases will jump a lot in the first couple of weeks as people become more aware that there is a new strain of flu out there. I'm sure many more actually have the virus, but dismiss it as a common flu.

This does NOT mean that we should panic. The virus could have been going around for a few weeks/months before it was noticed. This means that there probably have been a lot more people infected, but on the flipside, these people have recovered since. Most people do not go to the doctor for a flu; they stay home, down some OJ and chicken soup, and sleep.

I am as yet undecided on where I stand. On the one hand, there is always the somewhat paranoid side of me that thinks this might be the start of some depopulation plan. On the other, not many people are dying of it in the states, which leads me to believe that this is just a new strain of flu and therefore more contagious, but not necessarily more lethal than the common flu we see every year, which infects 5%-20% of Americans every year, with 36K dying in the states.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Isn't mexico quite a hot country?

It seems to have done alright there.


Death toll in mexico according to the news is 150.

Normal flu kills alot more people yearly than that. 150 is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of people that die from normal flu.
Hundreds of thousands die annually from the flu. During a pandemic millions die worldwide.

Like I said. I'll wait and see before I act.


You are comparing oranges with apples and ONE WEEK against A YEAR.




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kawz1
 


I see you use suppositions to deter math.

Ok.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim11
reply to post by Mexican against NAU
 


And again, it is not exponential, when you have 2,999 infected, let's say I'm one of those... I won't infect 2,999 people myself!



You misunderstand what an exponential is.

You don't need to infect 2999 people for it to be exponential.

An exponential represents a constant unit of growth, for example, 3% per year is an exponential.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim11
 


I am not using that exponential, but 1.80.

Just read the starting post before you sound like an uninformed debunker.

Arm yourself with facts and links and come back to the thread and tear it up.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Mexican against NAU
 


Your "math", although well intended, is a twisting of statistics. You are using the growth rate of the first few days to project the overall rate. This is misleading. Don't get me wrong, I think there is quite a good chance that this virus is man made and potentially just as lethal and contagious as my worst fears suggest, but it is too early to say. Preparation would be the best option, but your "math" misleads and will cause some to panic.

It's like this, the opening day of a movie is always huge, but you can't use the tally from the first weekend to project the total box office gross after 3 months. Your sample size is too small and there are a number of outside factors to consider.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Though this is a rough estimate of what the numbers are I agree with this spread. A online game gives a great example of this; Pandemic 2. I guess you could choose all the symptoms of Swine Flu and have a go at it on the game. Its a good time waste aswell.


Pandemic 2



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawz1
reply to post by Mexican against NAU
 


Your "math", although well intended, is a twisting of statistics. You are using the growth rate of the first few days to project the overall rate. This is misleading. Don't get me wrong, I think there is quite a good chance that this virus is man made and potentially just as lethal and contagious as my worst fears suggest, but it is too early to say. Preparation would be the best option, but your "math" misleads and will cause some to panic.

It's like this, the opening day of a movie is always huge, but you can't use the tally from the first weekend to project the total box office gross after 3 months. Your sample size is too small and there are a number of outside factors to consider.



If I don't use the numbers we have from the onset of the pandemia, I will make my own. I will be twisting the facts to which ever way I want to twist the information, but it will not be FACTUAL.

Besides, a pandemia is not a movie. People don't go twice to see it or listen to the accounts of people who already went to the movies. This is NATURE.

The more people get infected, the more people will be infected and therefore there will be more deaths. Do you know your sylogisms?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Exactly Power.

If people don't know what EXPONENTIAL GROWTH is, they will try to debunk with a blind fold on.





new topics
top topics
 
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join