Zeb

Mathematics is merely abstraction Three models that are the same

Three instances of the same Mathematical model. Tag, cards, NetLogo
#EduSky #MathSky #EpiSky stochanswers.com/company/abst...

Oops, should have said exponential growth. Obviously exponential decay is natural.

I hope it includes the word "exponential" and says that it has nothing to do with epidemiology whilst referencing Farr (1840), Kermack-McKendrick(1927), etc. etc.

Epidemic The card game

I've seen several stochastic epidemic models that break the laws of Maths. The bridge between the two subjects is probability theory. You can use it to calculate the odds that an epidemic will grow exponentially.
stochanswers.com/education/ep...

Minimal SIR model in NetLogo

This software may help,
stochanswers.com/downloads/ep...

Good luck. I hope you never say an epidemic grows exponentially. Although that was debunked in 1840, 1927, ... lots of people still insist on telling everyone that they failed basic Maths.

Then you should get back to Turin quickly before the local beer kills you. (I lived opposite the XXXX brewery, they used to make mango flavour beer)

During the mask mandate I wore a mask that I'd made from gauze. It had the same effectiveness as most others and the advantage that I needn't carry a knife to go with a surgical mask designed to stop pressurised bodily fluids from entering the nose and mouth when the wearer stabbed someone.

Every DAG has its day?

Will they be telling you next how to write ODEs? That would be lyrical.

Epidemiological tag Maths in the playground

It's not hard it's child's play :-)
stochanswers.com/education/ta...

And yet there are millions of Aussies, mainly on the coast. I once worked with them on a site with 4 different species of snake including the most deadly and an official snake catcher. We also had platypuses, Asian geckos (used to leave chalky white turds on my desk) and, presumably, spiders.

The first question that I asked Grok was how epidemics grow exponentially. So it told me. It should have told me not to be so silly and provided references back to 1840. LLMs are as ignorant as the average person. i.e. the weights are trained by "common knowledge"

Discrete isotropic turbulence decay of

A DNS of turbulence model that nearly works and runs on a laptop. #CFD #MathSky
stochanswers.com/studies/deca...

"Self reported mask wearing" 🤡

A teachers guide to the modelling of epidemics
#MathSky #StatsSky #EpiSky #EduSky

github.com/stochanswers...

As I said Cochrane. e.g. 2023
www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD0...

Epidemiological tag Maths in the playground

Get moving, indeed
stochanswers.com/education/ta...

If you want something more modern than the 1980s then there is the Cochrane Review which found that there was no decent evidence that they worked.

Epidemiological tag Maths in the playground

Here's a very simple model although the card game implementation is probably better to teach, the NetLogo gets a bit complicated but shows that the reproduction rate averages
to that of the standard SIR model.
stochanswers.com/education/ta...

So nothing on stochastic modelling of epidemics?

You said Vance belongs in The Hague which requires the ICC being able to enforce its will against a non-member. Mere charges are irrelevant. You really are delusional.

The reasonable worse case is logistic growth as has been known since 1927 (Kermack-McKendrick), in reality growth is less. Masks were debunked by the Common Cold Unit of the MRC before it closed at the end of the 1980s. Lockdowns decrease the number of infected thus leading to a second wave.

Your education was obviously lacking if you think the USA is a member of the ICC. Did Twitter block you for misinformation?

I just did a complaint flagging some of the prior art - Farr (1840), Kermack-McKendrick (1927). At least in recent years we're starting to see a little rigour with people placing "exponential growth" within double quotes. What happens and when to cause a finite variable to leave a curve to infinity?

I thought that was what happened 5/6 years ago. Dr Farr (1840) showed that epidemics do not grow exponentially.

It's Pontefract, what about the cakes?

Well the author, journal editor and reviewers all failed basic Maths for that paper.

There are only three things I know that grow exponentially - compound interest, grains of rice on a chessboard and pyramid schemes. Every other example seems to be due to the person failing basic Maths.

How do you explain all those epidemiologists, immunologists & virologists believing epidemics grow exponentially?

My explanation is that they failed basic Maths. AI, being interpolative weighted by the most common answer, just repeats the nonsense.