Humanoid

Send them to R01AI110964 Thanks!

If it's "impossible" to match the graph, then how do you know that your "delta" explanation is correct? "well it gives bigger numbers"... yeah it gives bigger numbers, but how much bigger. And how much bigger is that bulge in the data? It's just a 2x slope. You can't say that since this is bigger and that is also bigger, so that's proves it's the correct explanation. You need something much more quantitative than that.

I'm not the one who posted the 2^x and 4^x sequences. I'm not saying that those are the correct equations. I'm just showing that those equations DON'T match the data. And are therefore incorrect equations. I'm not the one ignoring the other influences. It is your equations that are ignoring the other influences. In fact, all the equations posted here to explain the Delta explanation, have a zero match with the data. If your equations don't match the data, then they are not correct explanations. If you have a correct equation, go ahead and post it. And let's see if it matches the data.

Maybe this is a simpler explanation for those who didn't like the graphs: 1 person infecting 4 people after 4 steps: 1 - 4 - 16 - 64 - 256 1 person infecting 2 people after 8 steps: 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256 It's practically the same thing. It reaches the same number. The only difference it that it just takes twice as long to get there. The only thing that changes in the graph is the slope. The slope is just twice as steep. You can see it in the graphs. What happens in one week with 4 infections, happens in 2 weeks with 2 infections. What happens in one month with 4 infections, happens in 2 months with 2 infections per person. It's not going to be: "Giant bulge in the graph with 4 infections per person. Nothing there with 2 infections per person." The plateau would be at almost the same height. It would just take twice as long to get there. Nobody should care if an infection rate has doubled, because doubling the infection rate is not a significant occurrence. For those of you who claim you can explain the graph with a double of infection rate, I'm still waiting to see your equations. Sure you can compare: 2^10 vs 4^10 and see wow, look at the huge difference between 1024 and 1048576. Well, I can also do 2^10 vs 2^20 (that is, just wait twice as long) and say, wow, look at the huge difference between 1024 and 1048576. Or rather 2^20 vs 4^10, and show you that the answer is exactly the same, it just takes twice as long to get there.

For those who are considering the 2^x and 4^x sequences that were posted by robblok as a valid explanation. Just take any graphing calculator, for example here: https://www.desmos.com/calculator On the top left box, enter y = 2^x and then in the 2nd box below it, enter y = 4^x. The x will appear in superscript as you type it. You will see 2 graphs drawn on the right. At x = 0, you will see y = 1 for both representing 1 you know what. At x = 1, you will see the graphs go to 2 and 4, and at x = 2, you will see them go to 4 and 16. These are the 2 sequences that robblok gave as an explanation for the graph that I posted earlier, which has been deleted by a moderator. Now try to match up those 2 graphs with the other graph that he claims these are a valid explanation for. If he is correct, the 4^x graph should be matched up with that thing seen in 2021, while the 2^x graph should be matched up with things seen earlier. You can even try stretching the graphs horizontally by replacing x with something like x/10. Zoom in. Zoom out. See if you can find anything that matches. If you know what a derivative is, you can also take the derivative of both equations if you think that changes anything. You can also try modifying the equations to make them more realistic to account for real life behaviour. I have my own alternative idea to all this, however, it is believed by others to be a lie. And lies are not allowed to be mentioned on this forum. So I will not mention what my alternative idea is. To be clear to the moderators. I have zero intention of breaking any of the forum rules here. I hope that what I wrote above, which is mostly about math, does not violate any of the rules here. I'm being very careful about what I write. Maybe I should stop posting in this thread altogether. I'm afraid I might get banned from the forum if I accidentally misspeak in some way. I think a lot of people already hate me for having alternative ideas. Silenced Humanoid

For those considering that the giant spikes shown in the Thailand graph above are due to a new variant. Remember that Delta is only about twice as infectious as the previous one. Does that graph look like the work of a virus that is only twice as infectious as the previous one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2 Look in the table where it says +97%. Then look again at the Thailand graph I posted earlier. It's not too hard to make a good guess.