tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16083653267486410282024-03-14T01:20:03.251-07:00James L. Carrolljlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-7872931354658639112021-02-03T10:54:00.006-07:002021-02-03T14:13:03.228-07:00Groundhog's Day and the Meaning of Life<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPX0tt5nguBGjiObVMsAKd3m6CpAVBmiEinaetEmJDgFq4Ncn5RKLFBMJLW2Gt_PddgtDWiCJfeKUyCl7Ih0ZmK5FUHr2I0t41lHwY1mzdtEem81lNvaynUR0jgLvUbNHG1PUqxsluNMDm/s600/31ah-groundhogday-movies-articleLarge.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPX0tt5nguBGjiObVMsAKd3m6CpAVBmiEinaetEmJDgFq4Ncn5RKLFBMJLW2Gt_PddgtDWiCJfeKUyCl7Ih0ZmK5FUHr2I0t41lHwY1mzdtEem81lNvaynUR0jgLvUbNHG1PUqxsluNMDm/s320/31ah-groundhogday-movies-articleLarge.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Yesterday was Groundhog's Day, the holiday where everyone waits with baited breath for a rodent to decide if it saw its shadow, and therefore, whether there will be a long winter, or an early spring. </div><div><p></p><p>I don't actually know what happened this year.</p><p>But to celebrate the auspicious occasion, we went to my in law's house, and we watched the movie "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray. </p><p>I had forgotten just how great (and even Buddhist) that movie is. </p><p>Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, who is quite the self centered jerk, is a reporter sent to cover the groundhog’s day celebration (a holiday that he thinks is ridiculously silly and pointless), but for some unexplained reason, he begins to relive that frustrating day over and over again, forever. </p><p>What made the movie especially interesting to me this time through is that Phil seemed to move through many of the stages of an existential crisis. The movie is primarily a comedy, but I think it has a lot to say about finding meaning and purpose in life. Bear with me here.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy68Nd2itooPQHFHVK_ueyVxT9Z3P_JxIVSDvjQm-3UU4qoimvANDra_CpMViVohftGT8x-BKLHmuWfCpXBZ_yzBVVfh-06DGgqjcXj_HEjD4URhybEuEffPZhW4eI6IFdQskZDzaO-RY/s600/Cakep399gwv3kzv31.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy68Nd2itooPQHFHVK_ueyVxT9Z3P_JxIVSDvjQm-3UU4qoimvANDra_CpMViVohftGT8x-BKLHmuWfCpXBZ_yzBVVfh-06DGgqjcXj_HEjD4URhybEuEffPZhW4eI6IFdQskZDzaO-RY/s320/Cakep399gwv3kzv31.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>When Phil first realizes that his actions have no consequences, he immediately experiments with Hedonistic gluttony, then moves through the blind pursuit of sexual pleasure, to greed as he learns to steal with impunity (because he can try over and over again until it works, with no consequences for his failures). </p><p>But rather predictably, this doesn't make him happy and Phil becomes depressed. What do you do with an infinity of life? Shallow pleasures are simply not fulfilling when you live the same day over and over again. This is the existential horror expressed by Hindu’s and Buddhists at the thought of Samsara and eternal reincarnation. What good is eternal life anyway? One option of course, is suicide. In this context, why not simply end the cycle of rebirth? But it doesn’t work. To his horror, he wakes up in the same bed, with the same horrible morning alarm music over and over again. No matter what he does. He’s trapped in Samsara, the eternal cycle of rebirth forever. </p><p>But the next stage of his existential crisis involved his falling in love. That could have provided a new sense of meaning for Phil, except he can’t win over the woman he loves in a single day. She remembers his past behavior towards her, and he has to start over with any progress the next day. Worse, he comes to realize that in his selfishness, he is simply not worthy of her. </p><p>And this is when things begin to change… and he begins a process of self improvement. He studies French Poetry. He initially despised it, and only learned about it to seduce his love interest, but eventually he finds that he likes it. He takes piano lessons. He learns to ice sculpt. And then, finally, he begins to live for others. This is the key. </p><p>Knowing what will happen each day, he starts to intervene in ways that make the lives of others better. Instead of mocking the celebration of groundhog’s day, he finds a way to make it inspiring for the other people who enjoy it. He changes a flat tire, he catches a kid who falls from a tree. He tries to save the life of an older homeless man. He saves another man from choking. Then, while dancing with his love interest, he says that whatever comes next, he is “happy now”. He has found a way to live for the moment, and find joy IN that moment, even if he can never escape the eternal cycle, he’s happy. </p><p>And this is why he was wrong that having to relive a day means that there are no consequences for his actions. Harmful actions are wrong precisely because they cause harm to others in the moment, regardless of what comes after. Similarly, good actions are good because they cause joy for ourselves and others in that moment. It's true that the future matters as well, and that actions that cause joy now but suffering later can be wrong because of the future effects. But this does not mean that the lack of a future effect robs the present joy or suffering of all meaning. </p><p>Compassion, love, and living in the moment have removed his suffering, and made a bad man into a good one. </p><p>And now, finally, he is worthy of the woman he loves, and when he falls asleep in her arms, he wakes up the next day, and he is finally free of Samsara. It’s February 3rd, and groundhog’s day is over. But then, like the Bodhisattva, he says that he wants to live in the town he tried so hard to escape from. He loves the people there now. All of them. </p><p>And now his life has meaning. </p><p>I think this is a rather profound illustration of <a href="http://amateurscriptorians.blogspot.com/2018/11/meaning-and-broken-myth-maintaining.html">my own beliefs, and the way that I find meaning and purpose in life,</a> without any need for belief in a god, or heaven, etc. Life is beautiful, because we can be happy, now, in the midst of Samsara. And we can choose to return to Samsara, rather than just seeking an escape from it, because we can find meaning in living a life for others, helping them to escape their own suffering, and finding joy in each moment. I think that compassion, love, relationships, are what makes my life worth living.</p><p>I think that Groundhog's day has joined with <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/16iDg9jMwRha5TjWWiu5fp3xfNyqOVEiusU_xf8PZoaY/edit?usp=sharing">several other key movies/stories</a> that I believe function as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBEPZU9U8HU" target="_blank">"modern myths"</a>, in that they explore or illustrate concepts around the meaning of life in a profound and moving way. <br /></p></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-20254593740825466772020-11-09T06:37:00.008-07:002020-11-09T20:05:47.839-07:00Spurious Claims of Voter Fraud<p>Because of the absolute blizzard of misinformation and flat out lies being currently spread, it is essential to share the facts with regard to Trump's dangerous, authoritarian, and undemocratic claims of voter fraud. I have done my best to provide my followers with accurate, factual, and up to date information, based on data and evidence during this entire process. It is disappointing that I even have to address this issue, but I apparently do. </p><p>I grew up hearing spurious claims about "dead people voting" etc. I heard these claims my entire life, and I often believed them, without actually looking into the evidence for them. We need to understand what constitutes good evidence, and the ways in which claims like these should be tested. The fact that things like this are said on talk radio, is not proof that they are accurate and reliable. Since then, I have actually taken an interest in voting, polling, statistics, and the data science behind it. In all that work, I have found that the evidence for these claims, beyond simple claims and hearsay, is practically non-existent. It always was. </p><p style="text-align: left;">After intense claims of voter fraud in 2016, Trump initiated an investigation and task force to look into all those claims, the so called "Voter Integrity Commission". Pence was in charge of this commission/task force. It concluded with no concrete evidence having been found or presented to the American public. <a href="https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d">https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d</a> The burden of proof continues to be on those claiming fraud, and our courts of law are the places where such evidence should be weighed and evaluated. </p><p style="text-align: left;">As Lyle Schofield, a dedicated (and frankly extreme) Republican and Trump supporter wrote: "if [Trump] understood world history and geopolitical reality he is playing right into Russia, China, and Iran's hands by creating distrust in our form of government and the outcome of the election." <a href="https://www.facebook.com/lyle.schofield.7/posts/3586941988015270">https://www.facebook.com/lyle.schofield.7/posts/3586941988015270</a> Even he sees it. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Romney recently responded to Trump's claims by pointing out that Trump "has a relatively relaxed relationship with the truth." <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1325448775595339779?s=04">https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1325448775595339779?s=04</a> </p><div dir="auto"><p style="text-align: left;">The American people are well aware of the fact that Trump often says whatever he wants, and thinks that if he says it often enough, people will think it's true. Only 39% of those who voted said that they thought that Trump was "honest and trustworthy". <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/929478378/understanding-the-2020-electorate-ap-votecast-survey">https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/929478378/understanding-the-2020-electorate-ap-votecast-survey</a></p><p style="text-align: left;">Republicans USED to care about these geopolitical issues. The collateral damage to our democratic institutions and international standing may be irreparable. </p><p style="text-align: left;">For this reason, there should be a high bar of evidence for such claims... A bar that Trump and his team are clearly not crossing.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Court Battles, Evidence of Fraud: </h2><p style="text-align: left;">Litigation regarding which votes should be counted, and how they should be counted, is common in elections like this. That part at least is somewhat normal, even if the rhetoric around it this year is not. This litigation leaves a paper trail of actual, reliable, confirmed evidence. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The best way to assess the strength of the claims of fraud is to simply look at the results and arguments on his ongoing court battles. Unlike at a press conference, in court you have to have (and present) factual evidence. Press conferences, social media, network news anchors, are all irrelevant. Simply read the court filings, and follow the rulings of the various judges. Remember, the courts are largely packed with Republican judges, they are NOT somehow biased against Trump. Even if you believe that the media is biased against Trump, the courts are not. </p><p style="text-align: left;">He has every opportunity to get a fair hearing there. And yet, none of these cases are actually going well for Trump.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Even more telling, most of the cases don't even allege what they are falsely claiming in their press conference, because in a court of law, you can't simply make things up like you can in a press conference... you need actual evidence, and they apparently have none. If they did, they would be presenting it to the courts. And they are not. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Here is a useful summary of the current state of the various court cases, both those that are finished, and those still in play: <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-irregularities-claims/2020/11/08/8f704e6c-2141-11eb-ba21-f2f001f0554b_story.html&source=gmail&ust=1605011158163000&usg=AFQjCNEgEHXFngUuuxf2BiJVso-af59OWA" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-irregularities-claims/2020/11/08/8f704e6c-2141-11eb-ba21-f2f001f0554b_story.html" target="_blank">https://www.washingtonpost.<wbr></wbr>com/politics/trump-election-<wbr></wbr>irregularities-claims/2020/11/<wbr></wbr>08/8f704e6c-2141-11eb-ba21-<wbr></wbr>f2f001f0554b_story.html</a> </p></div><p style="text-align: left;">As Chris Christie (Republican) has repeatedly said, Trump should now provide concrete and court worthy EVIDENCE for voter fraud, or move on. "That's why, to me, I think it was so important early on to say to the president: If your basis for not conceding is that there was voter fraud, then show us. Show us, because if you can't show us we can't do this. We can't back you blindly without evidence." <a href="https://nj1015.com/christie-on-trump-provide-proof-of-election-fraud-or-just-move-on/">https://nj1015.com/christie-on-trump-provide-proof-of-election-fraud-or-just-move-on/</a></p><p style="text-align: left;">Republicans like Christie understand the incredible damage that will come to our democracy if Trump eventually concedes that the election was "stolen" rather than that he simply lost. </p><p style="text-align: left;">If there is actual, concrete, and actionable evidence of fraud, it should be heard by the courts, and the vote counts corrected appropriately. But so far, none has been found. If any is found, I will be the first to call for the correction of the vote counts. </p><h2 style="text-align: left;"><b>The Red/Blue Mirage, Evidence for Fraud? </b></h2><p style="text-align: left;">Another very VERY essential point is that the most intuitive argument for fraud being put forward is that Trump was INCREDIBLY far ahead, and then fell behind as the slower mail in votes were counted. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Here I can say something relatively concrete, because we are back in my area of expertise (polling, uncertainty quantification, and data analysis). </p><p style="text-align: left;">Before the election began, I pointed out that this year we should expect wild swings depending on when each state counted the different TYPES of votes. I reminded people of this on November 3rt, ad 8:33pm Mountain:</p><p style="text-align: left;">"Reminder, we expect a late red shift in Arizona, but a blue shift in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania... The difference has to do with whether mail-in votes are counted and reported first... or after..." <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jlcarroll/posts/10160290376544018">https://www.facebook.com/jlcarroll/posts/10160290376544018</a>: </p><p style="text-align: left;">We knew this going in. For example, Ohio looked VERY good for Biden, but then swung hard towards Trump. Why? Because Ohio counted the mail in ballots first BEFORE election night even began.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Pennsylvania wanted to do the same, but they were blocked from doing this, and could not begin processing mail in ballots until election night. The result was that in person votes were reported FIRST, while mail in votes were counted second. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Here's what the AP Votecast "alternative" to exit polls shows about mail in voting:</p><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEienvl6mscxhj5JHvtTRQSr28EYqU559Z8kCsRzCoZl4Ee7TA_FTrbzLknoY7sXfdOkgM6-bwGNU2ofO1okfH6tEmoa5FMfw5tw9AR6bU8Fim06JxZ5S3lN2HCndSB15T2tULMNEo0dmBnL/s779/screenshot.16.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="779" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEienvl6mscxhj5JHvtTRQSr28EYqU559Z8kCsRzCoZl4Ee7TA_FTrbzLknoY7sXfdOkgM6-bwGNU2ofO1okfH6tEmoa5FMfw5tw9AR6bU8Fim06JxZ5S3lN2HCndSB15T2tULMNEo0dmBnL/s320/screenshot.16.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="text-align: left;"></span></div></div><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/929478378/understanding-the-2020-electorate-ap-votecast-survey">https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/929478378/understanding-the-2020-electorate-ap-votecast-survey</a> </p><p style="text-align: left;">The reliability of exit polling this year, given the errors in the pre-election polls, and (more significantly for exit polls) the amount of mail in voting this year, is another topic of discussion that I hope to write about soon. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But for now, it's enough to say that our best guess is that Biden won mail in voting by 36 points, more in other regions. This is not surprising given that one candidate discouraged his followers from voting by mail, and given that the COVID-19 outbreak has been politicized such that one party is more concerned about it than the other. </p><p style="text-align: left;">I KNEW this late shift in counts was a likely thing, and I did my best to warn everyone before the election began. And yet, even I was confused about it twice during election night, once when I started to think that Biden had a shot at Ohio, and again when I started to think that Trump was more likely than Biden to win Pennsylvania. In both cases, I KNEW the late shift red in Ohio, and blue in Pennsylvania was coming, but I questioned whether it would be enough.
During the course of the election, I NEVER thought that Trump was the inevitable winner, but I did think he was up.</p><p style="text-align: left;">In contrast, fiveThirtyEight's conditional probability model (taking the called states into account) kept telling me that Biden was a large favorite to win Michigan and Wisconsin, and that Pennsylvania would be close. I should have trusted it more. It's also true that there were election experts who were looking at which types of votes were still out in Pennsylvania, and where those votes were from, who were telling me at the time that Biden was actually up in Pennsylvania the entire time, even when I was saying that Trump was likely a small favorite. This was simply a matter of lacking information on my part. In retrospect, I can look at the raw data, and see that a Biden victory in Pennsylvania was almost assured from very early on on election night. Trump was NEVER actually ahead there, given which votes were in, where they came from, and what kind they were.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The point of all of this is to say that there is no evidence of voter fraud in a late blue, or red shift in these states. It was expected, we understand the mechanism, and it is not at all surprising, or nefarious.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The math simply doesn't support that claim, so if there is actual evidence of fraud, it will need to come from another source... But as I said above, so far, the court battles haven't provided it. </p>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-66073998035748095852020-09-01T12:42:00.002-07:002020-09-01T12:42:44.724-07:00COVID-19 Daily Updates Moved:<h2 style="text-align: left;">New Blog for COVID-19 Daily Updates:</h2><p>I have been posting my daily COVID-19 updates here, on my personal blog. But it now makes sense for this to have its own space. So I will be posting all future daily updates there. If you have been following me here for those updates, I recommend subscribing over there: <br /></p><p><a href="https://covid-19watch.blogspot.com/">https://covid-19watch.blogspot.com/</a></p>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-59255958911216753242020-08-31T06:33:00.002-07:002020-08-31T06:33:29.040-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Sunday, 8/30/2020<h2 style="text-align: left;">World Wide Trends, How Many People Have Been or Currently Are Infected? </h2><p>There have now been <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; text-align: right;">25,417,886 confirmed cases of COVID-19 world wide. That's 0.33% of the world population. According to WorldOMeter, 6,840,933 of those cases are "active". However, <a href="https://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2020/08/covid-19-daily-update-for-yesterday_29.html" target="_blank">as we discussed in the last update</a>, WorldOMeter's recovery estimate is too low. I estimate that there are currently 4,395,451 confirmed cases that are still "active'. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; text-align: right;">However, how many people have <b>actually</b> been infected? Many people who are infected are never tested, and never become a "confirmed" case. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; text-align: right;">One way to estimate infections that I have used before, is to use the number of deaths, and the range of possible infection fatality rates to get a range of possible true infections (and assuming an average 20 day lag between infection and death).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; text-align: right;">This estimate will only be as good as the approximations to the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), and the reliability of the death data used. I am currently using the range of IFR estimates given by the CDC. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; text-align: right;">If we apply this to the World-Wide data, these are the results: </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2EfeqHvRAZUULGpcICSKKc73Byan1sz87GO5JCSC1rE51ttNxToEKIBATsvsamcM4oE5GOOyv9VqLy0XKfqvgCED8UsVkzdMyHPjxqsFfTDVqw3Q3wqDYEvWnLndzzXw5gJSjcK51fxcJ/s600/World-Wide_+%2525+of+the+Population+Infected%252C+Assuming+CDC+IFR+Estimates+and+a+20+Day+Lag+Between+Infection+and+Death.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="600" height="339" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2EfeqHvRAZUULGpcICSKKc73Byan1sz87GO5JCSC1rE51ttNxToEKIBATsvsamcM4oE5GOOyv9VqLy0XKfqvgCED8UsVkzdMyHPjxqsFfTDVqw3Q3wqDYEvWnLndzzXw5gJSjcK51fxcJ/w480-h339/World-Wide_+%2525+of+the+Population+Infected%252C+Assuming+CDC+IFR+Estimates+and+a+20+Day+Lag+Between+Infection+and+Death.png" width="480" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We can see that the number of true infections inferred in this way is significantly larger than the number of confirmed infections. But it's also worth pointing out that this is possibly an under estimate, because it is highly likely that the true death tole world wide is under-reported, especially in less developed regions. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We can then apply the same formula we used last week for estimating recoveries to turn the cumulative number infected into an estimate of the number of active cases, those currently infected: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIhkLxd6msBcwSwkIJXZU1VRIn9WDnRnAA54gZgy6vBLVjpqh1aOBP4CT3tYRDfn16JnzLdy1ie72R54vTWBQTfDWCHpoS37MGsbP5MUK1vd7brfFsxEFWQg76NdJGNtpXnWMGZlc_1HL3/s600/World-Wide_+%2525+of+the+Population+Actively+Infected%252C+Assuming+CDC+IFR+Estimates+and+a+20+Day+Lag+Between+Infection+and+Death+%25281%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="600" height="339" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIhkLxd6msBcwSwkIJXZU1VRIn9WDnRnAA54gZgy6vBLVjpqh1aOBP4CT3tYRDfn16JnzLdy1ie72R54vTWBQTfDWCHpoS37MGsbP5MUK1vd7brfFsxEFWQg76NdJGNtpXnWMGZlc_1HL3/w480-h339/World-Wide_+%2525+of+the+Population+Actively+Infected%252C+Assuming+CDC+IFR+Estimates+and+a+20+Day+Lag+Between+Infection+and+Death+%25281%2529.png" width="480" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">By this estimate somewhere between 0.15% and 0.3% of the world's population are currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Both of these estimates seem unreasonably low. Certainly it is significantly lower than we see in Europe or the US (although the US should hardly be held up as a model of success). Certainly a large portion of the world's population live in China, and they have done remarkably well at limiting the virus' spread. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Nevertheless, it seems likely to me that the true death tole from COVID-19 is significantly under-reported world wide. </p><h2 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Deaths By Day, Estimating the Reporting Lag from Florida:</h2><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It can be very helpful when locations report either cases by date of symptom onset, or deaths by date of death, rather than by the date the case or death was reported/recorded. This can give us a better idea of the true shape of the curve... but it also has a lag to it, that <b>always </b>makes it look like cases/deaths are going down while we wait for these cases/deaths to be reported. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">When modeling this lag, it's important to have good data on what the lag has been historically. For Florida, there is an excellent archive of historical information showing how the data has come in over time, available here: <br /><br /><a href="https://github.com/mbevand/florida-covid19-deaths-by-day">https://github.com/mbevand/florida-covid19-deaths-by-day</a> </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is what that delay looks like for Florida: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_d5GvDa1M9pl8I8dpjoAwyV6ES-FCeH_7f7qOJbH4UcuoOgzIWLafebLK6xGvDZOWGf9xODftYTdQsU9c0Ncis-tWjVfkvOz9lXUoBbf5TqdabuPQ0rpc7wRVPN8Ch0bIQmtUcp6PlUto/s2048/chart_average_reporting_delay.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1244" data-original-width="2048" height="311" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_d5GvDa1M9pl8I8dpjoAwyV6ES-FCeH_7f7qOJbH4UcuoOgzIWLafebLK6xGvDZOWGf9xODftYTdQsU9c0Ncis-tWjVfkvOz9lXUoBbf5TqdabuPQ0rpc7wRVPN8Ch0bIQmtUcp6PlUto/w512-h311/chart_average_reporting_delay.png" width="512" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The proposed fit is 1-e^(-0.1513x).</p><p></p><p></p>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-69290604806360050482020-08-29T06:13:00.003-07:002020-08-29T06:13:41.710-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Friday, 8/28/2020<h2 style="text-align: left;">World Wide Trends, Updated Methodology:</h2><div>I have been using WorldOMeter to get world wide recovery data. They had the best estimates, because many places simply don't report recoveries, and in that case, WorldOMeter seemed to be estimating them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sometimes. </div><div><br /></div><div>But after staring at this figure for weeks now, I'm coming to the conclusion that they are missing a lot of recoveries. </div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0nnIj0um2HqzojarCs2VducvYuJV6eGMdCUaSnOF-6R9YDlDmZAQ7BUTaGUmVz427pOjPJFiPXhkgDCMaXM6zhltKOf6Cy4xiFmcQNQ5mDBw85M0CmyX3b7E9k3d3lbr-f8zZ5bkIeuQ/s595/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale+%25281%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb0nnIj0um2HqzojarCs2VducvYuJV6eGMdCUaSnOF-6R9YDlDmZAQ7BUTaGUmVz427pOjPJFiPXhkgDCMaXM6zhltKOf6Cy4xiFmcQNQ5mDBw85M0CmyX3b7E9k3d3lbr-f8zZ5bkIeuQ/w476-h297/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale+%25281%2529.png" width="476" /></a></div><p style="text-align: left;">It's been over a month since peak cases back in mid July, but the recoveries have not yet caught up. But they <b>should </b>have by now. And if this was wrong, it would be impacting everything I did with global trends... the % growth rate, doubling times, etc.</p><p style="text-align: left;">So just as a sanity check, I implemented a common "recovery estimation" algorithm (used for a while by Texas). That is, I took the number of cases-deaths, and I assumed that 80% of those will have a mild case, and will recover in 14 days, while 20% of those will have a more severe case and recover in 32 days. </p><p style="text-align: left;">(Note, I am not looking for "long haulers" who seem to have a lingering immune over-reaction that persists and causes sometimes debilitating problems long aver the virus itself has left their system. Rather, I am looking for the number of people who have cleared the virus and are therefore no longer contagious, regardless of long term impacts.) </p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVoRCEZZLS02W7-KSaNnoXGY2xDbsxTv8eE7WxE2-izcXIrziGhrXnJpnDRAjL637KkHBdmjgnll21z4c7pmRUw0OotRck-dUTJPapXJrSjHKEK6jLfpECfaQfAZvuQdEuRg4waVaaSCcb/s595/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVoRCEZZLS02W7-KSaNnoXGY2xDbsxTv8eE7WxE2-izcXIrziGhrXnJpnDRAjL637KkHBdmjgnll21z4c7pmRUw0OotRck-dUTJPapXJrSjHKEK6jLfpECfaQfAZvuQdEuRg4waVaaSCcb/s0/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" /></a></p><p style="text-align: left;">As you can see, this approach paints a far more optimistic picture of what is happening. I also think that it is more likely to be correct. </p><p style="text-align: left;">If we use these estimates of recoveries to estimate the daily change in active cases, we get the following: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw_xpecFC8hoaLUXp4hdGM0AxqWOMWTlbrAqhyw7j7bbXtfG9KDcnum4ZE7tVx8pXGtWMyW_gZpoM16El4fgKkyZmRY41HQfWE4hMqMKkxklzjj9nCFJl32S4GWLLB6fetMyAFDFOw2dIi/s595/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw_xpecFC8hoaLUXp4hdGM0AxqWOMWTlbrAqhyw7j7bbXtfG9KDcnum4ZE7tVx8pXGtWMyW_gZpoM16El4fgKkyZmRY41HQfWE4hMqMKkxklzjj9nCFJl32S4GWLLB6fetMyAFDFOw2dIi/w476-h297/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases.png" width="476" /></a></div><p style="text-align: left;">Again we see that my estimates look very different from those of WorldOMeter, and, they paint a much more optimistic picture of what is happening. Right now, my estimate shows that the number of active cases is declining (the change is below 0) while WoM's estimate for recoveries has the number of active infections still growing (above 0).</p><p style="text-align: left;">If we use these new recovery estimates to calculate the % growth (in active cases) this is the result: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3_s6q7Aa7rmn_wFUtlYaqxBeKcvUvH9Xrkud9rPWILLBFav8D04jrWQglNsKlWocy5P4FnSc00YBLIeaFoooXTN-8V4nPZfy7HoGLg2kjhzUNjNm2WSG1AOVe3v_LLC3FalacrOZwZFO5/s600/World+Wide_+%2525+Growth+in+Active+Cases.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3_s6q7Aa7rmn_wFUtlYaqxBeKcvUvH9Xrkud9rPWILLBFav8D04jrWQglNsKlWocy5P4FnSc00YBLIeaFoooXTN-8V4nPZfy7HoGLg2kjhzUNjNm2WSG1AOVe3v_LLC3FalacrOZwZFO5/w480-h297/World+Wide_+%2525+Growth+in+Active+Cases.png" width="480" /></a></div>And if we zoom in on the y axis we see that the trend has been a negative % growth for just over a week: <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2fdcLmdt_5223AegI3iyeVfT9Og_X_uVryjVeq5O1yA1zhxt2LFF-vIMUTK3dyco_avDc2gG-Tex9FFkw4IFWubHZ7DnGtNeFbhSg3kgt1DmSWSXhq2D7f4A_V04YIk3TQNrXkmt-oXoZ/s600/World+Wide_+%2525+Growth+in+Active+Cases+%25281%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2fdcLmdt_5223AegI3iyeVfT9Og_X_uVryjVeq5O1yA1zhxt2LFF-vIMUTK3dyco_avDc2gG-Tex9FFkw4IFWubHZ7DnGtNeFbhSg3kgt1DmSWSXhq2D7f4A_V04YIk3TQNrXkmt-oXoZ/w480-h297/World+Wide_+%2525+Growth+in+Active+Cases+%25281%2529.png" width="480" /></a></div><div><p style="text-align: left;">I highly suspect that right now more people are recovering each day than are being newly infected each day. Which we would not suspect if we just naively used WoM's recovery data. <br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">Some good news. </p></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-35800185606501951992020-08-28T05:31:00.004-07:002020-08-28T05:35:29.773-07:00CODID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Thursday, 8/27/2020<h1 style="text-align: left;">World Wide Trends in Brief:</h1><p>The world wide daily change in new cases now appears to be roughly flat in both the 7 and the 14 day averages: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYThBz-_8JtiuuN94MTEWluvThuInZ_wJS_927LhTUleu6RTICMcdr4OZkIxGgAbIlwaIg42Rt1hxlzjDYrifqXWYHy5C_JoNPdMvYYvWuHYgswA2ajkJIrixWyRoASu1EPCTafMxdBiWs/s595/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%25283%252C+7%252C+and+14-Day+Average%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYThBz-_8JtiuuN94MTEWluvThuInZ_wJS_927LhTUleu6RTICMcdr4OZkIxGgAbIlwaIg42Rt1hxlzjDYrifqXWYHy5C_JoNPdMvYYvWuHYgswA2ajkJIrixWyRoASu1EPCTafMxdBiWs/w476-h297/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%25283%252C+7%252C+and+14-Day+Average%2529.png" width="476" /></a></div>The reason for this can be seen in the daily cases and recoveries chart below: <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiov0bAYTlVy0CdSh0XXx3f0yu2xZAu1TOoyUC8dqHi65ifmdj4He_dZkvNWHrF_0LL2o3w6Ks-2vdhgKJdbfH2DzqTZoTk2PndNkaiv9PTLBocHbpNSUuwPQeiZwLSXGuXpq6zlpwO_rB6/s595/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiov0bAYTlVy0CdSh0XXx3f0yu2xZAu1TOoyUC8dqHi65ifmdj4He_dZkvNWHrF_0LL2o3w6Ks-2vdhgKJdbfH2DzqTZoTk2PndNkaiv9PTLBocHbpNSUuwPQeiZwLSXGuXpq6zlpwO_rB6/w476-h297/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" width="476" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">However, since the daily cases are also in VERY gradual decline, eventually the daily recoveries should catch up, and the daily change in active cases should go negative. Unless there is a new increase in the number of daily cases.</div><h1 style="text-align: left;">Second Wave Watch:</h1><p style="text-align: left;">For the last month we have been watching three countries that initially did very well in responding to the virus, namely South Korea, New Zealand, and China. They each used a different approach, but all three initially succeeded in handling the pandemic in a way that most of the rest of the world has failed to do. New Zealand even completely eliminated all local transmission for over 100 days, and completely reopened. </p><p style="text-align: left;">However, near the end of July/start of August, all three have seen a second resurgence of cases. It will be important to watch and see if they are capable of controlling the virus again, if so, it will demonstrate that their initial success was not a 'fluke', and that it was something the rest of us COULD have done, had we chosen to. </p><div><img border="0" data-original-height="1446" data-original-width="2048" height="362" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgujJl1ZTC51fvEyVw79kWsduBxP00GvJOdd_Qa9BS0vYec4WF4kn1F2WdaAL5IXgC4iLRUd9KVW74O0R0kvSzGoWwzuFpnlM0zgwsfTTjXOETKgn85YNJHhAlOuAl6FdGKeyQGYxhF7fsc/w512-h362/coronavirus-data-explorer.png" style="color: #0000ee; text-align: center;" width="512" /></div><div><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div style="text-align: left;">Cases in South Korea are still rising. Their contact tracing system has yet to catch up with the viral spread. Nevertheless, most countries would be ecstatic if they could keep cases below 400/day. Whether this remains a "success" will depend on whether cases continue to climb. </div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcxk5WvHN8L05kSmHQYl8-8VwfilJVUKTOUVOdEYyK7kFmiusEbp8qG5OCYZFA74QR9xu4kFKG0yfnFBxtZYRAp_zOl4CBZ2Y1vqcdo_OHMO8HWWlJZcrNOEBkU6MgTX7r6GvTvSmEdgJi/s2048/coronavirus-data-explorer+%25281%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1446" data-original-width="2048" height="362" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcxk5WvHN8L05kSmHQYl8-8VwfilJVUKTOUVOdEYyK7kFmiusEbp8qG5OCYZFA74QR9xu4kFKG0yfnFBxtZYRAp_zOl4CBZ2Y1vqcdo_OHMO8HWWlJZcrNOEBkU6MgTX7r6GvTvSmEdgJi/w512-h362/coronavirus-data-explorer+%25281%2529.png" width="512" /></a></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></p><p style="text-align: left;">Cases in New Zealand appear to be declining. Their response to this <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/25/yes-new-zealand-is-confronting-new-coronavirus-outbreak-its-still-way-ahead-us/" target="_blank">failure at their boarder</a> which allowed the virus back in has been phenomenal so far. If this continues, it seems likely that New Zealand will soon be virus free again, and can again reopen. </p><p style="text-align: left;">When they do, they will show the world that the best response both <b>economically</b> and from the perspective of public health is to "go early, and go hard."</p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgueiiVgPPzxcHX5oYRb5VFyqQ1owoHSEPksrxCruyHEIw6HVQslh5Dl0-2KR9OZFrLj4lX9q1zmSEuXK7i0-44gdSqYPvmAJHJ0PadyVki49ZjOO-BwLaQkzQOZxiPv5Zc8E1pSD0UtLzY/s2048/coronavirus-data-explorer+%25282%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1446" data-original-width="2048" height="362" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgueiiVgPPzxcHX5oYRb5VFyqQ1owoHSEPksrxCruyHEIw6HVQslh5Dl0-2KR9OZFrLj4lX9q1zmSEuXK7i0-44gdSqYPvmAJHJ0PadyVki49ZjOO-BwLaQkzQOZxiPv5Zc8E1pSD0UtLzY/w512-h362/coronavirus-data-explorer+%25282%2529.png" width="512" /></a><p></p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">China is also seeing a steep decline in the number of daily cases, which is now well below 100/day. </p></div><div style="text-align: left;">While their authoritarian tactics are neither desirable nor something we would want to emulate, they are a second case study demonstrating that local lockdowns coupled with contact tracing can successfully eliminate viral spread, and keep the rest of the country open, and thus minimizing economic impact. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And New Zealand demonstrates that this can be done without the authoritarian overtones. <br /><br />The US's halfhearted response, with a "lockdown" that never actually locked things down, is the absolute worst of both worlds, with extreme economic impact, but without any meaningful control of the virus. </div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-54735103499181412292020-08-27T06:15:00.006-07:002020-08-28T03:21:39.537-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, 8/26/2020<h2 style="text-align: left;">Automation Update, Available Figures:</h2><p>I am now automatically generating several figures each day and pushing them to an online "git" repository. I have had two volunteers offer to work on creating a web page that will provide a more useful interface to the figures/data. But for now, you can <a href="https://github.com/jlc42/jlc42.github.io/tree/master/figs" target="_blank">browse the figures with this link</a>. </p><p>There are several things available so far. </p><p>First, I am running the <a href="http://rt.live">rt.live</a> algorithm on the US as a whole (which they don't do). There are some good reasons they don't do that (the US is a diverse place, and some areas are doing better than others). But for those interested in what their algorithm has to say about the US as a whole, I now provide that visual updated every day.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG_BxG3PjkXXpmDodBvkx79Lxpzw_vhVHuOoyEpgTov38cvzPX5aHEhAHNRfxJBrMzsdQLcM365I-BZqFrR_xV28yQZtVqa1od-5zCj_k2hlpSy4GuS5JB-e0WhMaty8koS6dmSd3UKgXY/s1000/USA_cases.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1000" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG_BxG3PjkXXpmDodBvkx79Lxpzw_vhVHuOoyEpgTov38cvzPX5aHEhAHNRfxJBrMzsdQLcM365I-BZqFrR_xV28yQZtVqa1od-5zCj_k2hlpSy4GuS5JB-e0WhMaty8koS6dmSd3UKgXY/w512-h256/USA_cases.png" width="512" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizNMiEmFX7tLwHSHcYrot3DAXMrS7n856xTobDsKpCdfbPQR2hrKsqN2vLCKb0SoLj4yJJKUvlDs6eZwecDbE4sMIX7upPmgnavNwSMQgLYlAuyu8p3Wn6hClbn8dzbNWRNe25zGGBr6pI/s1000/USA_rt.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1000" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizNMiEmFX7tLwHSHcYrot3DAXMrS7n856xTobDsKpCdfbPQR2hrKsqN2vLCKb0SoLj4yJJKUvlDs6eZwecDbE4sMIX7upPmgnavNwSMQgLYlAuyu8p3Wn6hClbn8dzbNWRNe25zGGBr6pI/w512-h256/USA_rt.png" width="512" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As I have <a href="https://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2020/08/covid-19-model-talk-rt.html" target="_blank">previously discussed</a>, I disagree with the conclusions of rt.live's algorithm. I believe they are FAR too aggressive in adjusting for testing rates, which causes them to assume that the first peak(in April) was much higher than the second (in July). I believe they were of roughly the same size. So I hope to eventually provide a modified version of this analysis that more accurately adjusts for testing rates. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We are providing <a href="https://github.com/jlc42/jlc42.github.io/tree/master/figs/casesNTests" target="_blank">tests and cases</a> for each state. As an example, here's New Mexico: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwjrxGKh7ft9DTa0GXe5FMoIznNQQH6ZuR0Q1exicEm1NI-s-WWRKdnp2sVjiSehzXyoZ2B3aiLxdiiZ_980RQ4KSmQqVxISPohydXcLVYlZBJBQxo8j86BOwdHaDnWxi-UQKI5-L_6DVH/s640/NM-Daily+Cases+and+Tests.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwjrxGKh7ft9DTa0GXe5FMoIznNQQH6ZuR0Q1exicEm1NI-s-WWRKdnp2sVjiSehzXyoZ2B3aiLxdiiZ_980RQ4KSmQqVxISPohydXcLVYlZBJBQxo8j86BOwdHaDnWxi-UQKI5-L_6DVH/w512-h384/NM-Daily+Cases+and+Tests.png" width="512" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">For these figures, the scale is set such that the tests are at a scale 10 times that of the cases, therefore, if the cases are above the tests in the figure, then the percent of tests that are positive is over the danger zone of 10%. The goal is to keep the cases (orange line) well below the tests (blue line).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And finally, we are providing the <a href="https://github.com/jlc42/jlc42.github.io/tree/master/figs/percentViralTestsPositive" target="_blank">% of tests that are positive</a> information directly in its own figure. As an example, here is New Mexico again: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyohv45zZG2JshoFIYVMnkGE_jU5d80Jo_MHgX0aesl78XUlY0Q8Q2pfWCUbEmBPWXfFiWK-yNDChqTFy_UmgzkTskRcIdRVdIcLtIYUXNheO2jhDv8APINZAjfDu9PRlfoDq0FtFw04Td/s640/NMpercentViralTestsPositive.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyohv45zZG2JshoFIYVMnkGE_jU5d80Jo_MHgX0aesl78XUlY0Q8Q2pfWCUbEmBPWXfFiWK-yNDChqTFy_UmgzkTskRcIdRVdIcLtIYUXNheO2jhDv8APINZAjfDu9PRlfoDq0FtFw04Td/w513-h384/NMpercentViralTestsPositive.png" width="513" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Again, the goal is to keep the % positive rate below the danger zone of 10%. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Because I am now producing these figures for each state every day, you can check your own state, without waiting for me to do one of my "daily updates" on the state you care about. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is all a work in progress, so hopefully the user interface for viewing all this data will improve substantially in the future. </div></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-25488563487843674722020-08-26T08:57:00.006-07:002020-08-26T09:15:10.098-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Tuesday, 8/25/2020<h2 style="text-align: left;">Is it Signal, or Is it Noise? (World Wide Trends Update)</h2><div>We discussed these two charts a few days ago. But here's the update: </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZoPyc8qkdpmrbYOcTrYcwZlGE7g7hfvreSjM9KnerivLmICay4QnGR_Hd2cJvvkmBnf5SXYN8mnueK3OSzyTLxX4roA5QEX3gszMCznQpko_33At36L_wSdxk3hrsUMVUqa7Nw1yF5vhS/s595/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%252814-Day+Average%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZoPyc8qkdpmrbYOcTrYcwZlGE7g7hfvreSjM9KnerivLmICay4QnGR_Hd2cJvvkmBnf5SXYN8mnueK3OSzyTLxX4roA5QEX3gszMCznQpko_33At36L_wSdxk3hrsUMVUqa7Nw1yF5vhS/w476-h297/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%252814-Day+Average%2529.png" width="476" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The question at the time was whether the seeming uptick in the 7 day average of the daily change in new cases seen in the 7 day average was signal or noise, given that the 14 day average was still going down. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As of today, the 14 day average is also going up. So for now at least, it appears that this metric is getting worse. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">However, it appears that much of this is driven by the change in recovery rates. The number of daily new cases appears to be slowly declining:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhka5BN3FD2qpbW5bkhUGwxTrI2EL9Ia2rhnHB9xdkAFijPcY7RcpGBZgQBvKwIYOs7zTZVsbtK6PSPIYfikW2GCVEqbWbv_5tvRolVd0m_9QoCxdkeFK35vzeV50XAd5by8hqjADs_KfhH/s595/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhka5BN3FD2qpbW5bkhUGwxTrI2EL9Ia2rhnHB9xdkAFijPcY7RcpGBZgQBvKwIYOs7zTZVsbtK6PSPIYfikW2GCVEqbWbv_5tvRolVd0m_9QoCxdkeFK35vzeV50XAd5by8hqjADs_KfhH/w476-h297/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" width="476" /></a></div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">First Confirmed Case of Reinfection (Is that as Scary as it Sounds?): </h2><p>The first truly confirmed case of reinfection <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/hong-kong-man-was-reinfected-coronavirus-researchers-say-n1237840" target="_blank">has now been reported</a> from Hong Kong. Previous reports of reinfection may have been due to false positives, or to a test picking up on dead viral material, or from a resurgence of the previous infection. </p><p>However, in this case, we know it's real. The RNA of the virus was sequenced from both infections, and it is clear that the second infection was both real, and different from the first. </p><p>I have seen quite a few news stories, and/or posts on social media with people freaking out. </p><p>What does this really mean? And should we be panicking? </p><p>First, it doesn't mean that the virus has mutated enough to reinfect people. The mutations were enough to use RNA tests to show this was a different strain, but we have been tracking mutations of the virus, and using those to <a href="https://nextstrain.org/sars-cov-2/" target="_blank">track the family tree of the pandemic</a> from the start. There is no evidence (yet) that the virus is mutating in ways that help it to avoid immunity (like the flu does).</p><p>Instead, it would appear that the man's natural immunity simply decreased to the point where he could be reinfected. This is how most other corona viruses (like the corona virus versions of the common cold) end up re-infecting us. Meaning this was expected. The reinfection took place after four and a half months from the time of initial infection, meaning immunity likely lasts at least that long, and most likely longer on average, since this was the FIRST confirmed case like this so far. </p><p>That we lasted this long is GOOD news. </p><p>What is even more exciting was that his second case was completely asymptomatic. Meaning, that his immunity wasn't actually gone. While it didn't prevent him from being reinfected, it DID prevent him from getting ill with ANY symptoms the second time through. </p><p>This is also good news, this is VERY good news. </p><p>We also know that many of the vaccines currently in development appear to be producing a stronger, and longer lasting immune response than the disease itself. </p><p>While this does mean that natural herd immunity is a losing strategy, <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/without-a-vaccine-herd-immunity-wont-save-us/" target="_blank">we already knew that</a>. By the time we could conceivably anything close to herd immunity levels of population immunity... that immunity would be going away for many, and things would just start over. Although the disease would likely be less deadly to may the second time around, this would make it impossible to prevent the elderly and/or vulnerable from catching the disease at least once, and that would mean an unacceptably large death tole. </p><p>However, with a vaccine, things look very different. </p><p>While this case of reinfection may mean that we will need a booster at 6 months, it does not mean that a vaccine would not work. And, with a vaccine, we could actually reach (and maintain) herd immunity levels such that we could allow people who are elderly and/or vulnerable to go back out into society with minimal risk of getting infected. </p><p>The news articles sound scary... but I believe that this isn't actually bad news. </p>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-31585515341648265702020-08-25T07:50:00.002-07:002020-08-26T09:01:21.534-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update: Automation Progress Update:<h1 style="text-align: left;">COVID-19 Daily Update: Automation Progress Update:</h1><p style="text-align: right;"><i>Today is a model discussion day. I will give a pandemic status update tomorrow. </i></p><p>I have been working recently on automating the process of gathering data every morning. Frankly, I'm surprised it took me this long. </p><p>Previously I had been moving data to my spreadsheet from various sources by hand. For those interested, <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qVOdkuQ1IQb8McLNoe3oiSrnU1gVj7X916dvpyZ-zZY/edit#gid=0" target="_blank">here's a link to my spreadsheet</a>, with all my old data. </p><p>As nice as it was to have all the data (and figures) in one place, where everyone could look at it, and intuitively see how I did any calculation... as I began to track (and correlate) a larger set of data, this became unwieldy, and simply took too much of my time. <br /></p><p>I spent yesterday and this morning writing python code to automate this process. </p><p>For those interested, the code is available on github: <a href="https://github.com/jlc42/JLC-COVID-19-Tools">https://github.com/jlc42/JLC-COVID-19-Tools</a></p><p>This is a very preliminary work in progress. Currently, it has scripts to gather data which I ca run each day. I still need to write some code to automatically parse some of the web pages I scrape. But at least the data is saved. (Some date, notably from Georgia and Texas goes away if you don't scrape it daily. Some of that data is saved each day by CovidTracking, but other bits are simply lost if I don't scrape it myself daily, namely the testing data on antigen tests or serology tests. Texas puts that in their spreadsheet, but only has the "daily" value for the antigen and serology tests there... so yesterday's numbers are 'wiped out' by tomorrow's numbers.)</p><p>I can now put that on a chron job, and have it run every night while I am sleeping, and the data will all be saved. </p><p>Next I need to write some code to go through all the saved data, and organize it into the useful fields I track... that's a larger task, that will take a LOT of time. For NOW, I have it pulling down (and organizing) the US state data from CovidDTracking... and then building a single plot... </p><p>So... after two days of work... drum roll please.... here's my single plot, automatically generated for me this morning: <br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR5cwGK4scBzgJTOIL18urRuodNhJMcb5kho4Dv3K7zzOzXqucHNv6vEvMo1ym0tX0gbod3lqE3EhRDkFMDl1Y4R1x9Zhd2Fo8Pjr8q1wLpMFMLxIQ0sLgMTcGBCPRN22nu_Cz3smam3ol/s640/NM%25EF%2580%25BA+Daily+Cases+and+Tests.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR5cwGK4scBzgJTOIL18urRuodNhJMcb5kho4Dv3K7zzOzXqucHNv6vEvMo1ym0tX0gbod3lqE3EhRDkFMDl1Y4R1x9Zhd2Fo8Pjr8q1wLpMFMLxIQ0sLgMTcGBCPRN22nu_Cz3smam3ol/w512-h384/NM%25EF%2580%25BA+Daily+Cases+and+Tests.png" width="512" /></a></div><p>And there it is, in all its glory. Here's the same figure plotted from my spreadsheet: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0yp94EOlkqfIEQElGgMToejDRcMa_TsRfhbiCBiQjvXKTdlP_bOI3FeS7QKC2iyeGl4eoDXcfExarfV_x15JsWw3xaGL4YGqBjNr5CIH_DCrnFHqI5Sy8kVrP7jT8i8kztpuJHlv7I5Fl/s600/NM+-+Daily+New+Confirmed+Cases+and+Tests.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0yp94EOlkqfIEQElGgMToejDRcMa_TsRfhbiCBiQjvXKTdlP_bOI3FeS7QKC2iyeGl4eoDXcfExarfV_x15JsWw3xaGL4YGqBjNr5CIH_DCrnFHqI5Sy8kVrP7jT8i8kztpuJHlv7I5Fl/w480-h297/NM+-+Daily+New+Confirmed+Cases+and+Tests.png" width="480" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I happen to think the scripted python version looks better. </div><p>Side note: things ARE improving in New Mexico, yes Tests are down along with cases, but that is because the DEMAND for tests is falling, as true infections fall... you can tell because the % of the tests that are positive is also falling. </p><p>Back to automation... </p><p>This single figure may not look like much, HOWEVER, with a simple loop, tomorrow I will be ready to produce this figure for EVERY state in the US. </p><p>And with a little bit of additional work, some parsing and gathering of data from my other sources, combined into a single data-file, I will be able to do this for every country as well. </p><p><br /></p><p>The case data and testing data is already available from other sources, but the next step will be to do some of the unique calculations I sometimes do, like my estimates of the % infected, and % currently infected, etc. And that's where the real potential lies. At that point, I may want to think about hosting this somewhere where people can see updated estimates for all these quantities for whatever location they are in. </p>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-66661271737775635892020-08-24T06:15:00.001-07:002020-08-24T06:25:52.891-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Sunday, 8/23/2020:<h1 style="text-align: left;">COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Sunday, 8/23/2020:</h1><h3 style="text-align: left;">World Wide Trends in Brief: </h3><div style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">In today's installment of "is it signal or is it noise", let's look at the World Wide daily change in the number of active cases. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></div>Active Cases are defined as the number of cases - number recovered. So the daily change in active cases, is the number of new cases that day, minus the number of people who have recovered that day. In other words, it's the orange line, minus the green line below:<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx1QGkV4qVRRWRuz2Nt_l1eOo-2bw0aRRlwH7I9b6TtlydWxQI8CIkTriowfeOQ-Fonltiy0AkVOM4M2HkdpUjX7ZeSRun1LOeJBHXPYDqUexhUlWUEDuVClNPbd1LYRf0kDBAhWWcuwch/s595/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx1QGkV4qVRRWRuz2Nt_l1eOo-2bw0aRRlwH7I9b6TtlydWxQI8CIkTriowfeOQ-Fonltiy0AkVOM4M2HkdpUjX7ZeSRun1LOeJBHXPYDqUexhUlWUEDuVClNPbd1LYRf0kDBAhWWcuwch/w476-h297/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" width="476" /></a><br /><div style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;">When it's positive (when the orange line is above the green line) the number of active cases world wide are growing. When it's negative (when the green line is above the orange line) the number of active cases world wide is shrinking. </div></div><div style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx1QGkV4qVRRWRuz2Nt_l1eOo-2bw0aRRlwH7I9b6TtlydWxQI8CIkTriowfeOQ-Fonltiy0AkVOM4M2HkdpUjX7ZeSRun1LOeJBHXPYDqUexhUlWUEDuVClNPbd1LYRf0kDBAhWWcuwch/s595/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;">When we plot that difference, we see that with a 7 day trend, the daily change in the number of active cases shrank for a while, but is now starting to grow again: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7FBJURePHkB8dXpHdQsXB6P3uKd6Csx510RBSfRha94DY6b27OWrz5WBaL4PYFv-3qzqyLN-_CBfmKhtUZr60oo4FmvrMPc9TIuyXTD9L4pJ3-Mdij3ZN4lhp8zVtwBQ6jzUrrGoFwZzc/s595/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%25287-Day+Average%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7FBJURePHkB8dXpHdQsXB6P3uKd6Csx510RBSfRha94DY6b27OWrz5WBaL4PYFv-3qzqyLN-_CBfmKhtUZr60oo4FmvrMPc9TIuyXTD9L4pJ3-Mdij3ZN4lhp8zVtwBQ6jzUrrGoFwZzc/w476-h297/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%25287-Day+Average%2529.png" width="476" /></a></div><div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;">However, with a 14 day average, the daily change in the number of active cases is still smoothly falling:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdRDWuEdZvb13yT6k4e83J_1Y_vfk1e6jeYa5fCpNpMmSmA_f38FVBBzlMDoYRapzS6SOSwhSk90aBtnTKeg31Ll4q0Xuv2RvouZYAcpBgO6Fo3hKemZOcdLA-Yij6-ZoG_t0_3unshxrF/s595/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%252814-Day+Average%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdRDWuEdZvb13yT6k4e83J_1Y_vfk1e6jeYa5fCpNpMmSmA_f38FVBBzlMDoYRapzS6SOSwhSk90aBtnTKeg31Ll4q0Xuv2RvouZYAcpBgO6Fo3hKemZOcdLA-Yij6-ZoG_t0_3unshxrF/w476-h297/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%252814-Day+Average%2529.png" width="476" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Remember that even if this line is heading downward, as long as it is positive, things are getting worse. It needs to be negative before things are getting better. That being said, are things getting worse at a decreasing rate (14 day average)? Or... are things starting to get worse at an accelerating rate (7 day average)? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This question (is it signal, or is it noise) is one of the KEY questions of statistics. And it is not at all easy to answer. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Given that there are strong "weekend" effects, we know we should be taking moving averages of the data in increments of 7. (With less than that you start to see weekly fluctuations that make the interpretation even more difficult). However, a 7 day average is potentially too small of a chunk, and it can be impacted by noise which makes you think you are seeing a new "trend" when you aren't. However, the 14 day average is too large, because it can hide trends that are, in fact, real, and you have to wait at least two weeks to be sure that something real has changed. Neither is ideal... and I would prefer something like a 10 day average. But the weekend effects make that even more problematic than either the 7 or the 14 day averages. <br /><br />This is a BAD idea, but I will show you what it looks like anyway: <br /></div></div><div style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizJwhF7KhamJbVXVRAkrbME78TRe6C3vBHco42jNcsGF6Vvtb3vfg723SVbov3t9P666lhBMwjQE8q6vLvYuGEJefeeU9K5K2cn08hk0RmpHPqIEDBuxAT3ReitBA0Lh39AMGtrVaWUsuQ/s595/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%252810-Day+Average%2529.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizJwhF7KhamJbVXVRAkrbME78TRe6C3vBHco42jNcsGF6Vvtb3vfg723SVbov3t9P666lhBMwjQE8q6vLvYuGEJefeeU9K5K2cn08hk0RmpHPqIEDBuxAT3ReitBA0Lh39AMGtrVaWUsuQ/w476-h297/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases+%252810-Day+Average%2529.png" width="476" /></a></div></div><div>It is POSSIBLE that the right thing to do would be to create a complicated model of the weekend effect, then take it out of the data, correcting for it... then take a 10 day average, and see what the trend says. But the strength of the weekend effect depends on which country is reporting the most cases at the time (some have a stronger weekend effect than others) so correcting for this is a moving target! It's potentially impossible to really get right. </div><div><br /></div><div>So instead... we are just going to have to wait... watch... and see where this trend goes in the next week or so. <br /><br />Did I mention that I hate waiting?</div><div><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="giphy-embed" frameborder="0" height="332" src="https://giphy.com/embed/QUmpqPoJ886Iw" width="480"></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/boy-kids-junk-QUmpqPoJ886Iw">via GIPHY</a></p>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-65974609289190099412020-08-21T08:00:00.003-07:002020-08-21T08:27:49.643-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Thursday, 8/20/2020<h1 style="text-align: left;">COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Thursday, 8/20/2020:</h1><h2 style="text-align: left;">World Wide Trends in Brief:</h2><div>Major world wide trends from my <a href="https://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2020/08/covid-19-daily-update-for-yesterday.html" target="_blank">last update</a> are largely continuing. </div><div><br /></div><div>Percent daily growth in active cases has been falling, but is now holding at around 0.25%/day:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaetPgm6KTtokhCUTCKmse0yX2wUUH4qN_GWqeMGrj5cyuE3kj_YRUm84_gbA7pB9KzBLVOXMI7oUybsuCtJkbsuCjkVAFTZWCdzxQ5U3E367SHAI_pW6RypdlX01uXN3ztA5tF0YiN-uL/s600/World+Wide_+%2525+Growth+in+Active+Cases.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaetPgm6KTtokhCUTCKmse0yX2wUUH4qN_GWqeMGrj5cyuE3kj_YRUm84_gbA7pB9KzBLVOXMI7oUybsuCtJkbsuCjkVAFTZWCdzxQ5U3E367SHAI_pW6RypdlX01uXN3ztA5tF0YiN-uL/s0/World+Wide_+%2525+Growth+in+Active+Cases.png" /></a></div><div>There have been two days with large outlier reporting spikes that make interpreting the daily deaths difficult, but the trend seems to be down since late July:</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPVpY0HWHMDxBIheMMTTjRZa1lH3VNKqCBjp-69-lPtspuGrLAJZY3Zz2JkXCC08PP5SYprgSRsbYIOQnWXjJMHxHGoRS53VLM-MxQvjeM0Ftai7XRVGyMwDA9NTRBjauEwmFCukYre4Si/s600/World-Wide_+Daily+Deaths+14+Day+Trend+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPVpY0HWHMDxBIheMMTTjRZa1lH3VNKqCBjp-69-lPtspuGrLAJZY3Zz2JkXCC08PP5SYprgSRsbYIOQnWXjJMHxHGoRS53VLM-MxQvjeM0Ftai7XRVGyMwDA9NTRBjauEwmFCukYre4Si/s0/World-Wide_+Daily+Deaths+14+Day+Trend+-+Linear+Scale.png" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Compilation of Data Sources: </h2><div>I am in the process of compiling some of the best computer readable data sources for COVID-19 modeling out there. This is a work in progress, but for those interested, <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ONnj3af3WVhzOwIbw6Rf0YSDjcjz-kN3PDrL_CSB2DM/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here's a link</a> to the document which will likely grow through time. Eventually I hope to wrote code to auto-scrape many of these resources, and I will provide a link to that code once it's available. </div><div><br /></div><div>If you are aware of a good data source that I have missed, leave it in the comments here, or feel free to send me an email, or yell at me on FB or Twitter. </div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Mis: </h2><div>I apologize that today's update is short, I have both a paper deadline, and a deadline for a presentation both due tonight. </div><div><br /></div><div>Data: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qVOdkuQ1IQb8McLNoe3oiSrnU1gVj7X916dvpyZ-zZY/edit#gid=0">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qVOdkuQ1IQb8McLNoe3oiSrnU1gVj7X916dvpyZ-zZY/edit#gid=0</a> </div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-23354995891559218102020-08-20T05:30:00.003-07:002020-08-20T05:48:20.291-07:00COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Wednesday, 8/19/2020:<h1 style="text-align: left;">COVID-19 Daily Update for Yesterday, Wednesday, 8/19/2020:</h1><div>Yesterday's <a href="https://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2020/08/covid-19-model-talk-rt.html" target="_blank">update</a> was a "model talk" discussion about problems with <a href="http://rt.live">rt.live</a>'s approach to estimating Rt. <br /><br />Today is a more traditional status update. </div><div><h2 style="text-align: left;">World Wide Trends in Brief: </h2><br />World wide we are starting to see minor signs of improvement. </div><div><br /></div><div>Daily cases peaked at the end of July, and have been falling VERY slowly since then. Because recoveries lag, they have continued to climb over the same period:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLadlyLC4aVaFYjjYQJXucLvN9AHI0HJM-bAm9Zx4e07og7aKD037F5t8K7NNC04KDSxIHtUm7sBesij4tKTPa6k8tZfbr8IU1D_DTAc6LIe3_DKr87ldBXzbzquMlKcigC1Lz0bK4-6pH/s595/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLadlyLC4aVaFYjjYQJXucLvN9AHI0HJM-bAm9Zx4e07og7aKD037F5t8K7NNC04KDSxIHtUm7sBesij4tKTPa6k8tZfbr8IU1D_DTAc6LIe3_DKr87ldBXzbzquMlKcigC1Lz0bK4-6pH/s0/World+Wide_+Daily+New+Cases+and+Recoveries+-+Linear+Scale.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">However, the number of new infections is still larger than the number of new recoveries, which means that the change in the number of active cases is still positive, meaning that more people are sick today than yesterday. But that trend has been moving down over time:<br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnhbzigalEZVAmF6kN3KS4Z-_a0FHsFHkFMDA6SkLBGDzmtKwrKS59uDVWzGIDN8uzuYHOHJ39g6B-vWGwZaQgWAF7uPnC3K8OxBpKVw_ciR9cVA9vmJO570zgStIdD6i4KqDej_aAvMvn/s595/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="595" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnhbzigalEZVAmF6kN3KS4Z-_a0FHsFHkFMDA6SkLBGDzmtKwrKS59uDVWzGIDN8uzuYHOHJ39g6B-vWGwZaQgWAF7uPnC3K8OxBpKVw_ciR9cVA9vmJO570zgStIdD6i4KqDej_aAvMvn/s0/World-Wide%252C+Daily+Change+in+Active+Cases.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">For the world to recover, this trend needs to be negative, and then stay negative. But there are still signs of improvement. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We can also see improvement in the daily deaths, which have also been trending down since the end of July: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGN6cUenRid8FTivz-0jEWtd0W0qb9tG82jmFRnc05iel4i53qKu5-N0ND95PND1Ib7n2netpiB0dpDeF7eSfCetsVZFl70MlLcrTCJUUN5s8kQu13UnOrih9bOD1CxfUDWwp1efdYifQ0/s600/World-Wide_+Daily+Deaths+14+Day+Trend+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGN6cUenRid8FTivz-0jEWtd0W0qb9tG82jmFRnc05iel4i53qKu5-N0ND95PND1Ib7n2netpiB0dpDeF7eSfCetsVZFl70MlLcrTCJUUN5s8kQu13UnOrih9bOD1CxfUDWwp1efdYifQ0/s0/World-Wide_+Daily+Deaths+14+Day+Trend+-+Linear+Scale.png" /></a></div><h2 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Can it be Done, Watching China, New Zealand, and South Korea:</h2><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We have been especially watching three countries: China, South Korea, and New Zealand to see if their strategies for dealing with the virus is viable. China used a totalitarian lockdown, South Korea used extensive contact tracing with only minor restrictions, and New Zealand "went hard and went early" (without China's totalitarian bent) to stamp out all local transmission before reopening completely. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">All three were initially successful. All three are now facing local outbreaks that are challenging their strategies. If we wanted to prove to the rest of the world that there were alternatives to our failed approaches, these are some important places to watch. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">China's approach of local lockdowns of the affected regions appears to be working: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifR5mDgEowkp860vFvJXrqujhBRMpXmub8Nz6ifDHr0robCKp0hNuAbP1ZmMVHUpRp7eJAhjvxVWyekBWS6YOGCVM3ibc89wGaUTsooLONJH0CL0YQa2GxzzdnlpuFPhbaNhwnpS-pg73i/s600/China+Daily+Cases+-+Linear+Scale_.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifR5mDgEowkp860vFvJXrqujhBRMpXmub8Nz6ifDHr0robCKp0hNuAbP1ZmMVHUpRp7eJAhjvxVWyekBWS6YOGCVM3ibc89wGaUTsooLONJH0CL0YQa2GxzzdnlpuFPhbaNhwnpS-pg73i/s0/China+Daily+Cases+-+Linear+Scale_.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">New Zealand's second lockdown with contact tracing also now appears to be producing improvements: </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&minPopulationFilter=1000000&country=~NZL&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&aligned=true&hideControls=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1446" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigEX7I13ResRM5KgDr057QjSaxTzeDY2a9pgYcqlymzyZsw1G2jED4UNGvsbuKdTqu3OP6XOuv4dlo-dmYtcf1-dMczWMpcmuYKChGrFQPgGa2XJKh6stKzaSaTIyQVcC5cTKPQ8aqZmdn/s640/coronavirus-data-explorer.png" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">South Korea is still struggling to get its most recent Fundamentalist Church Based outbreak back under control. But they did it once. Now we need to see if they can do it again. It's currently too soon to tell: </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifZhqH76pTxSP0rtSlXyvWQ32B1kxeHdOiZKW0qD6cXule6AmGUtgcByYd0JW1FlfTFXoWkJkkHBKdO_8KjB-KHW8NwU3BcXqxaNQI81tALfnJMPcteJ9wJIVFAq1LgY68CuBUF3jMc3QQ/s600/South+Korea%252C+Daily+New+Cases+-+Log+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifZhqH76pTxSP0rtSlXyvWQ32B1kxeHdOiZKW0qD6cXule6AmGUtgcByYd0JW1FlfTFXoWkJkkHBKdO_8KjB-KHW8NwU3BcXqxaNQI81tALfnJMPcteJ9wJIVFAq1LgY68CuBUF3jMc3QQ/s0/South+Korea%252C+Daily+New+Cases+-+Log+Scale.png" /></a></div><h2 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Source, Data, and Graphs:</h2><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qVOdkuQ1IQb8McLNoe3oiSrnU1gVj7X916dvpyZ-zZY/edit#gid=737858658">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qVOdkuQ1IQb8McLNoe3oiSrnU1gVj7X916dvpyZ-zZY/edit#gid=737858658</a></p><div><br /></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-80694510419952229762020-08-19T06:48:00.004-07:002020-08-19T07:07:36.195-07:00COVID 19 MODEL TALK, RT.LIVE IS WRONG:<p></p><h1 style="text-align: left;">COVID 19 MODEL TALK, RT.LIVE IS WRONG:</h1>I've been doing daily COVID-19 updates on facebook for a while now, and decided to move them to my blog. <p></p><p>Today is a statistics and modeling thing, so if that is not your "thing" I promise to do a "status update" tomorrow. And I'll start putting in the title which I am doing each day. </p><p>So... rt.live is wrong: </p><p><a href="https://rt.live">https://rt.live</a> runs their algorithm on individual states, but never gives an average for the entire USA. It makes sense that they might not choose to do this, the outbreak in the US is quite diverse, and differs from place to place. But I think it's still a good idea to get the average over-all picture. </p><p>Now that I have their code running on my local machine, I modified the code to run on the average for the US. The first two figures show my results. Remember, this is rt.live's algorithm, but run on data they don't normally show. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEEFys0Yhn6SvZBw4y7cSamOzetvT8YiZHppN3LIWsSyUZ4I-5_p7j9oVMphdvV3ett8peHf8heWynWX89UwQaGM8RxUBzk3xUauf1jZN2nOM2S5Dt8-fjVpDNnNTfC2GefpOHsiZA-s54/s1000/USA_rt.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1000" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEEFys0Yhn6SvZBw4y7cSamOzetvT8YiZHppN3LIWsSyUZ4I-5_p7j9oVMphdvV3ett8peHf8heWynWX89UwQaGM8RxUBzk3xUauf1jZN2nOM2S5Dt8-fjVpDNnNTfC2GefpOHsiZA-s54/w512-h256/USA_rt.png" width="512" /></a></div><p><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1000" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQpz1-Bga4xHpuvbLdEfB8VAoXZk-J_RLV9DiBm4kzXk5gUGY104vZA-GkQvbE-LlReXhZ6BgspitNL-uBSQPkQY5lUCcvUBS_0L2D9kWEEnzVHqe-X5i4MkmHnahkeJ45bZbtgv0S6wFU/w512-h256/USA_cases.png" width="512" /></p><p>The current estimate of Rt for the US is 0.96, with 80% intervals of 0.73 - 1.13. That seems reasonable. </p><p>HOWEVER, their adjustment for testing rates is VERY aggressive. They estimate that cases were more than TWICE as high in April's peak as they were in July's second peak. </p><p>I don't believe this is right. And if they get the case adjustment wrong, they will get their estimate of Rt wrong in general. I suspect that their CURRENT Rt is right, but their RT back in July is FAR too low. </p><p>If you ONLY look at the daily death curve, you might suspect something like what rt.live is saying. BUT, if you look at the hospitalization curve, it is obvious that this isn't right. </p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3pnfqc1WfmoZCYZHM19o761u4nX3sCwxnTlbLEMey2hs3lGvfaEjqcreN_Rxu_YJmugVPL7pD51ow73ldRPsmxQ3tmuwv4_YC9W0JoihmCAjBQMO5z0IpXgyLivhm94XTTHwV1WOykvO5/s600/US_+Hospitalized+Currently%252C+vs+Daily+Deaths+-+Linear+Scale.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3pnfqc1WfmoZCYZHM19o761u4nX3sCwxnTlbLEMey2hs3lGvfaEjqcreN_Rxu_YJmugVPL7pD51ow73ldRPsmxQ3tmuwv4_YC9W0JoihmCAjBQMO5z0IpXgyLivhm94XTTHwV1WOykvO5/w480-h297/US_+Hospitalized+Currently%252C+vs+Daily+Deaths+-+Linear+Scale.png" width="480" /></a></p><p>Instead... the case fatality rate has to be dropping. And that means that the second peak has to be at least as high as the first. I used to claim that the first was larger, because more people were being turned away at the hospitals, but after a <a href="https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1295731531512778755" target="_blank">conversation </a>with <a href="https://twitter.com/youyanggu" target="_blank">Youyang Gu</a> over on twitter, I have changed my mind... a falling average age of infection means a lower fatality rate, but ALSO a lower hospitalization rate. And THAT would imply that the second peak should be LARGER than the first! </p><p>Rt.live's second peak is not only not as large or larger than the first, it's MUCH smaller! This just CAN'T be correct. And that means that EVERYTHING else they are doing is also wrong. </p><p>The last figure shows the range of ways that the case data (in blue) can be adjusted for tests. The red curve is Youyang Gu's adjustment (with the second peak much higher than the first). The Yellow curve is my adjustment, with the two peaks roughly equal in size based on the hospitalization data. (I now believe that Youyang Gu's estimate is likely better than mine). The green curve is from rt.live. Not only is it an outlier... it makes NO sense. </p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwej0WTSGXivVZov7Pc6hoBr-soANo2yjuQ8PAXRGVWirWjTwxSHLop81dIPsETLqGIzwSjrL6r6T_BnPA3Rx0Xhqfz586DL9yhgmtmRDPersqg5ShwDmMCoLMuR707Yj46aMES414fcUD/s600/Inferring+Infections+From+Confirmed+Cases+%2528rt.live+is+wrong%2529_.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="600" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwej0WTSGXivVZov7Pc6hoBr-soANo2yjuQ8PAXRGVWirWjTwxSHLop81dIPsETLqGIzwSjrL6r6T_BnPA3Rx0Xhqfz586DL9yhgmtmRDPersqg5ShwDmMCoLMuR707Yj46aMES414fcUD/w480-h297/Inferring+Infections+From+Confirmed+Cases+%2528rt.live+is+wrong%2529_.png" width="480" /></a></p><p><b>Conclusion: </b>rt.live is wrong. The way they adjust cases for testing rates seems to be FAR too aggressive. For their curve to be right, the Infection Hospitalization Rate (IHR) would have to be RISING DRAMATICALLY, while the Infection Fatality Rate would have to be staying the same. </p><p>The reality is that both the IFR and IHR should be falling as the median age of infection falls, while the IFR should be falling faster than the IHR as treatments improve. </p><p>To get a good and reliable estimate of Rt, I'm going to need to re-write the part of their code that adjusts for testing rates. </p><p>(Here's a link to Youyang Ug's discussion of how he adjusts for testing rates: <a href="https://covid19-projections.com/estimating-true-infections/">https://covid19-projections.com/estimating-true-infections/</a>)</p>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-46922776977682291222014-11-26T12:14:00.002-07:002014-11-26T12:16:54.291-07:00Ferguson, Uncertainty, and a Way to Move Forward<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://vmlip.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/lawsuits-mitigated-through-vmlip-body-camera-initiative/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLNat-TuPlxGnsUSbOy1uIaYvBTmqwmE-RhSiDD0x4vtkwGEFh_3C1PwyLNddp4F_bSXtFJ2vQWb8PEMgv8Vuhb6UQ4mZj-ixXNT8w95NTu8UUU8rmkqYGZViQrUiz-6eWpa7SIZlJvSCu/s1600/ashland1_may2012_edit.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
I have been silent about the Ferguson matter so far, but I think it's time that I try to articulate a few of my thoughts on this matter.<br />
<br />
Before I begin, I want to get something out of the way first. No matter what happened between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, there is no doubt in my mind that race is an issue in our law enforcement. The reactions of people across the country to this event very clearly demonstrates that fact. People of color in our society simply do not feel protected by the police force that surrounds them, rather, they feel threatened by them. And this is a situation that simply must change moving forward if we want to create an ethical, equitable, prosperous, and peaceful society moving forward. And that fact will remain true, regardless of what actually happened in this single instance between Darren Wilson and Michael Brown.<br />
<br />
With regard to those specifics, many people have taken to the internet to tell us exactly what did happen that night, and why they think they know what "really happened". But that is not what I will do. The simple fact is that if <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/25/why-darren-wilson-said-he-killed-michael-brown/?tid=sm_fb" target="_blank">Darren Wilson's account of events that night</a> is accurate, then the right decision was reached, and he was innocent of any serious wrongdoing. However, if some of the other eyewitnesses accounts of the events of that night are accurate, then Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown in cold blood, and a very serious miscarriage of justice has taken place in this instance. And there are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/25/why-many-eyewitnesses-in-the-darren-wilson-investigation-were-wrong/?tid=pm_national_pop" target="_blank">extraordinarily compelling reasons</a> not to believe either Darren Wilson's account, or that of the other eyewitnesses testimony. Several of the eyewitnesses testimonies were later refuted by the forensic evidence (for example, testimonies about Michael Brown having been "shot in the back" simply do not match the forensic evidence). The simple fact is that the testimony of witnesses is by far the least reliable source of evidence imaginable. Many innocent people have been sent to prison based upon eyewitness testimony, only to later be exonerated by evidence such as DNA evidence, that simply does not make the sorts of mistakes that eyewitnesses do. And that fact means that <b>both </b>the testimony of Darren Wilson, and that of those others who saw the event are ultimately unreliable.<br />
<br />
The result of this, is that I simply do not know if Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown or not. And I believe that the certainty with which some others (on both sides) have approached this situation is largely unwarranted. So, what am I here to tell you? If I am not here to tell you who to believe, who is right, or whether justice was done, then what am I here to say? I am here to say that I don't know who is right, or what happened, but I do know how to be absolutely sure that this uncertainty does not happen again. I am here to tell you how we can know what happened next time, and how we can make sure that a repeat of this never happens again. And that answer is surprisingly simple.<br />
<br />
Every police officer should be <a href="https://www.change.org/p/police-chief-jon-belmar-require-ferguson-and-st-louis-county-and-city-police-officers-to-wear-body-cameras" target="_blank">required </a>to <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/20/mike-brown-law-petition/14336311/" target="_blank">wear a body camera</a> while on duty and while interacting with the public. Every time. Every police officer. Everywhere. Always. And when this happens we will never again be forced to say that we don't know for sure what happened. We won't have to say that we don't know whether or not justice was done or not when a police officer is not charged in a shooting death. When police officers are innocent of wrongdoing, that will be demonstrated by the camera. When they are guilty of wrongdoing, that too will be shown by the camera. The camera protects both the officer from false accusations, and the public from police abuse. And while knowing what happened after the fact is important, it is perhaps even more important that cameras can actually prevent incidents from ever happening in the first place. Both instances of abuse from police and of bad behavior from those they interact with will go down because both parties will know that they are being recorded, and that the truth of what they are doing will be known. People simply behave differently when they know that they are being watched. And <a href="http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force" target="_blank">evidence suggests</a> that the use of police cameras can drastically reduce both the incidents of police use of force (up to 50%), and can drastically reduce the incidents of complaints against officers.<br />
<br />
Now, this will not solve all our problems with police abuse in this country. And it certainly won't solve all our problems with race in this country either. But it is a start. And we simply must begin somewhere.<br />
<br />
This is an idea, who's time has come. Let's make it happen.jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-89641950530144018272013-02-19T13:47:00.001-07:002013-02-20T10:49:58.278-07:00Roadblocks to the Singularity?<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Book review of "Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100"</b> <b>by <a class="g-profile" href="http://plus.google.com/115180869215249546522" target="_blank">+Michio Kaku</a>.</b></div>
<br />
This was a fun book, but I believe that he is wildly overly pessimistic with regard to his predictions concerning strong AI.<br />
<br />
He proposed six "roadblocks to the singularity" which I would like to respond to in turn. He writes:<br />
<br />
“No one knows when robots may become as smart as humans. But personally, I would put the date close to the end of the century for several reasons."<br />
<br />
“<b><u>First</u></b>, the dazzling advances in computer technology have been due to Moore’s law. These advances will begin to slow down and might even stop around 2020-2025, so it is not clear if we can reliably calculate the speed of computers beyond that…"<br />
<br />
I believe that there are three reasons that this is incorrect:<br />
<br />
1. We don't know if the new paradigms that could replace Moore's law will allow faster or slower continued growth, so things could get better not worse... depending.<br />
<br />
2. Parallel computing could allow increased performance even if there is no immediate successor to Moore's law. For example, power consumption / flop continues to drop exponentially<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-leIlbvorMcU/TeVlH1Hs7GI/AAAAAAAAAmM/soWUaKxXeow/s1600/mflopsPerWat.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-leIlbvorMcU/TeVlH1Hs7GI/AAAAAAAAAmM/soWUaKxXeow/s320/mflopsPerWat.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
(<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5613003695780064354">https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5613003695780064354</a>), and the Brain is a proof by example that it can get down to around 20 wats/10^19 cps... If that trend alone continues, then super computers will continue to increase in performance, even if Moore's Law comes to a screeching halt<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gJn03XCCjEk/Tfp0ulBLpAI/AAAAAAAAApk/XI-iNvSuwh8/s1600/mflopsPerWatTrend.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gJn03XCCjEk/Tfp0ulBLpAI/AAAAAAAAApk/XI-iNvSuwh8/s320/mflopsPerWatTrend.png" width="320" /></a></div>
(<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5618931828657988610">https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5618931828657988610</a>).<br />
<br />
3. If you look at my graph, super computers will achieve 10^19cps (the upper bound of the computing power of the brain) just after his 2020 deadline, so it will be too late for the end of Moore's law to stop the creation of strong AI<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AhWRhfqG8iI/Tf_JZeFV8zI/AAAAAAAAAqg/sZ71R4-1P0o/s1600/SuperComputerPerformance1993-2011.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="249" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AhWRhfqG8iI/Tf_JZeFV8zI/AAAAAAAAAqg/sZ71R4-1P0o/s320/SuperComputerPerformance1993-2011.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
(<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5620432299391054642">https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5620432299391054642</a>).<br />
<br />
“<b><u>Second</u></b>, even if a computer can calculate at fantastic speeds like 10^16 calculations per second, this does not necessarily mean that it is smarter than us…<br />
<br />
“Even if computers begin to match the computing speed of the brain, they will still lack the necessary software and programming to make everything work. Matching the computing speed of the brain is just the humble beginning.<br />
<br />
To which I respond: That is strictly true, but if we have enough calculations for one computer to simulate the other computer (in this case the human brain), then that computer will indeed be as "intelligent" as the other. The only question is whether such a simulation will be possible, and if so, when it will be possible... more on that later.<br />
<br />
“<b><u>Third</u></b>, even if intelligent robots are possible, it is not clear if a robot can make a copy of itself that is smarter than the original.…John von Neumann…pioneered the question of determining the minimum number of assumptions before a machine could create a copy of itself. However, he never addressed the question of whether a robot can make a copy of itself that is smarter than it…<br />
<br />
“Certainly , a robot might be able to create a copy of itself with more memory and processing ability by simply upgrading and adding more chips. But does this mean the copy is smarter, or just faster…"<br />
<br />
It can be trivially shown that a computer/robot can indeed create a new computer/program/robot that is smarter than itself. The fact that Neumann didn't do it doesn't make it any less trivial. How do you do it?<br />
<br />
Let's start with human examples, then discuss hardware improvements (assuming that there are no software improvements beyond the brain simulation algorithm), and finally we will discuss whether a computer can make software improvements to its own algorithm.<br />
<br />
Humans easily create programs that are "smarter" than the programmer. For example, it is possible for me to easily write a checkers program that plays checkers better than I do. So if you consider intelligence as a multi-dimensional thing, it is clearly possible for an agent to create a new algorithm that is smarter in one or more dimensions of intelligence than itself, with a proof by example (I do it all the time).<br />
<br />
Next, hardware improvements:<br />
<br />
Michio Kaku admits that a robot can create a copy of itself with more memory and processing ability, but he doubts that such a computer should be called "more intelligent." However, if the robot built a copy of itself with twice the parallel processing power, and if that computer was intelligent by running a simulation of the brain, then it would indeed be more intelligent than before. Why? simple. It can now simulate two brains at the same time, or it can simulate one brain twice as fast (getting twice as much work done on a problem per thinking time spent). No one doubts that two people collaborating on a problem do a better job than one, or that one person who spends twice as much time on a problem gets more done on it.<br />
<br />
This can happen because we are simulating the brain with chips that run at about 10^-9 sec, while the human brain fires each neuron at 10^-3 seconds. That means that at first, each processor will be simulating multiple neurons. If you then have twice as many processors, you get to have each chip simulate less neurons, and voila, you can now speed up the simulation considerably, or run multiple simulations at the same time. This doesn't scale up perfectly, nor does it scale up forever, but it will work for quite a while, until we hit limits around where we have one processor for each neuron or synapse (depending), each one running at 10^-9 seconds, and then you may hit something of an impenetrable wall to making the simulation of a single brain go faster. But that still gives us about 10^6 levels of improvement beyond human level intelligence before we hit that wall. Furthermore, after that wall you can still simulate more brains and have them collaborate, each one working on a different part of the problem. That type of scaling should continue roughly forever. Unfortunately twenty people are not always twice as good at solving a problem than ten, so this type of improvement may eventually create diminishing returns. Yet after that limit is reached, it would be possible to put each brain simulation to work on a completely different problem, essentially doing two different things at once. The exact limits to this type of scaling appear to be a very long way off, and all of this assumes that somewhere along the way, we won't find a faster way to do what the brain does, or find a better means of allowing separate minds to collaborate and cooperate in parallel.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that we must admit that an AI brain simulation that can do nothing more than add processors to itself is indeed "more intelligent" by any reasonable description of the term.<br />
<br />
Now for the issue of software improvements:<br />
<br />
Can a simple software program make a copy of itself that is "smarter" than itself? It is trivial to show that this is true. ALL machine learning algorithms are algorithms that "improve" on themselves over time. If they copied their state at one point in time, and then copied their state at a later point in time, then they just created a copy of themselves that where smarter than their previous incarnation.<br />
<br />
But it gets better than this. It is possible to work on a meta learning algorithm that "learns to learn", meaning that the AI isn't just better at each problem because it has incorporated more data, but it becomes better at the fundamental problem of how to incorporate data over time. Or it is possible to use the computer to create a genetic algorithm that improves its own algorithms etc. There are thousands of ways in which it is possible for one piece of software to create another that is "smarter than itself." Studying this issue is an entire sub-field of machine learning that goes under the title "Meta-Learning" and "Transfer Learning" and "Learning to Learn". <a href="http://james.jlcarroll.net/publications/carroll-2005-towards-rl-task-library.pdf" target="_blank">My master's thesis was on this issue</a> and it is unfortunate that Michio Kaku appears to be completely ignorant of this entire field, or he would not have raised such a silly concern. (In his defense, he is a physicist not a computer scientist, however, if he is going to write about someone else's field, he could have at least consulted someone in that field that could have explained to him that he was not making any sense).<br />
<br />
“...<b><u>fourth</u></b>, although hardware may progress exponentially, software may not…<br />
<br />
“Engineering progress often grows exponentially… [but] if we look at the history of basic research, from Newton to Einstein to the present day, we see that punctuated equilibrium more accurately describes the way in which progress is made."<br />
<br />
The data seem to indicate that this is not true. If anything, software performance and complexity is growing faster than hardware performance (see <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/software-progress-beats-moores-law/">http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/software-progress-beats-moores-law/</a>).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, although I will grant him the idea of punctuated equilibrium, if you step back and view the trends from a distance, it often becomes clear that punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than the steps on a larger exponential trend. Most importantly, software builds on software. Each programming language from machine language, to assembly language, to a compiler, to modern interpreters, to complex and re-usable object libraries, to the current work being done by some of my colleges on statistical programming languages, provide abstractions hiding the complexities of the lower levels from those programming at the upper levels. This trend appears to be continuing, and it is this "building" effect that produces exponential progress.<br />
<br />
“<b><u>Fifth</u></b>, … the research for reverse engineering the brain, the staggering cost and sheer size of the project will probably delay it into the middle of this century. And then making sense of all this data may take many more decades, pushing the final reverse engineering of the brain to late in this century."<br />
<br />
Yes, it will be complex, and yes, it will be expensive (his two central complaints). But he admits elsewhere in his book that it could clearly be done quite rapidly, the only roadblock being the money it would cost. He then makes the absurd claim that there is less perceived "benefit" to be derived from such a simulation, so people won't invest the capital needed to create that simulation. I believe that this is short-sighted. There are many commercial applications for each step along the road to this simulation, and they will only grow as we get closer (see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rPH1Abuu9M">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rPH1Abuu9M</a>). In fact, I believe that there are more potential economic benefits for this work than perhaps for any other in human history. Surely someone else besides me will see the potential, and the funding will flow.<br />
<br />
There are many projects working on completing this monumental task, and several are proposing a time line involving around 12 years (incidentally, that is about when my projection of super computer power crosses the upper bound for running this simulation). See: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1387537/Team-Frankenstein-launch-bid-build-human-brain-decade.html#ixzz1Rp7JEF4R">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1387537/Team-Frankenstein-launch-bid-build-human-brain-decade.html#ixzz1Rp7JEF4R</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rPH1Abuu9M">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rPH1Abuu9M</a>.<br />
<br />
Our tools for this task are improving exponentially. Our computer power needed to perform this simulation is growing exponentially, our brain scan resolution is growing exponentially <a href="http://www.singularity.com/charts/page159.html">http://www.singularity.com/charts/page159.html</a> as is the time resolution of these scans <a href="http://www.singularity.com/charts/page160.html">http://www.singularity.com/charts/page160.html</a>.<br />
<br />
He does raise another concern related to this one, which I should address:<br />
<br />
“Back in 1986, scientists were able to map completely the location of all the nervous system of the tiny worm C. elegans. This was initially heralded as a breakthrough that would allow us to decode the mystery of the brain. But knowing the precise location of its 302 nerve cells and 6,000 chemical synapses did not produce any new understanding of how this worm functions, even decades later. In the same way, it will take many decades, even after the human brain is finally reverse engineered, to understand how all the parts work and fit together. If the human brain is finally reverse engineered and completely decoded by the end of the century, then we will have taken a giant step in creating humanlike robots.” (Michio Kaku “Physics of the Future, How Science will Shape Human Destiny and our Daily Lives by the year 2100” p. 94-95).<br />
<br />
We already mapped the brain connections of several very simple animals, but are currently unable to turn this map into an intelligent working simulation. So it would appear that our hardware creates the potential for brain simulation long before our software catches up and is actually capable of performing the simulation. This is the root of his concern.<br />
<br />
However, there are a finite number of types of nerve cells, and hormonal interactions that take place in the brain. Once we understand their behavior better, and once we create the algorithm for simulating them, after that moment, it is only a matter of scale and creating the larger more complex neural map. In other words, there is a gap between simulating individual neural behavior and mapping neural connections. Apparently, we can not yet simulate a single neuron's interactions appropriately, and so, knowing the network of connections for these neurons in C elegans is not as helpful as it at first might sound. We will not be able to truly simulate the worm's brain until we solve this problem, and we will not be able to truly simulate the human brain until we solve this problem. But once we can simulate these finite types of neurons correctly, we will be able to accurately simulate the worm's brain, and the human brain as well, once a neural map is created, (and once our computers become sufficiently powerful).<br />
<br />
It is my opinion that we will solve this individual neural simulation problem long before we will fully map the human brain. I believe that will take much longer. Why do I believe that we will be able to crack the behavior of neurons so soon? Because first, the complexity of this algorithm is limited by the human genome and its associated expression mechanisms, and second, current progress in this area is quite promising, and it appears that we are currently quite close.<br />
<br />
I actually believe that simulating the brain is a much harder problem that do extreme optimists such as Ray Kurzweil who thinks we will be doing this sort of simulation around 2019 (based on the idea that the functional simulation is less complex than the full simulation, which we won't be able to do until 2023 at the earliest). On the other hand, I believe that we will need to do the full simulation first, and then explore that for quite some time before we understand how it is working. But that only pushes things back to 2050 at the latest. Michio Kaku's assertion that 2100 will come, and go, and strong AI will still be years away seems a bit silly to me.<br />
<br />
Michio Kaku's sixth and final argument against the singularity is:<br />
<br />
“<b><u>Sixth</u></b>, there probably won’t be a ‘big bang,’ when machines suddenly become conscious…there is a spectrum of consciousness. Machines will slowly climb up this scale.”<br />
<br />
This isn't really a roadblock to the singularity. Every Singularitarian that I know agrees with this. None of them believe that some magic moment will hit and everything will change. They believe that change will accelerate until you won't be able to keep up without merging with our technology and transcending our biology, so this "roadblock" is inaccurately named, and rather irrelevant.jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-79589370240682794622012-08-06T09:27:00.002-07:002012-08-06T10:48:33.637-07:00Consciousness, Information, and the Interpretation Problem<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">One of the greatest mysteries of modern science involves understanding the nature of consciousness. There are currently many competing theories for the origins of consciousness. Although a clear solution is not yet in sight, nevertheless, there are many things that I believe that we can say about the problem now.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">Two competing popular theories of consciousness are <a href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7">Material Property Dualism</a> (MPD), and <a href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/8">Functional Property Dualism</a> (FPD). Both FPD and MPD are a variety of <a href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/19">Property Dualism</a>, that claims that something "more" than the structure and dynamics of physics is needed to explain consciousness. MPD claims that consciousness is inescapably tied to the matter that makes up our brains, while FPD claims that it is only the functional properties of our minds that is important, and that a simulation of a brain on a computer would thus have the same subjective experiences as does the biological brain. Personally, I prefer neither of these camps, but instead subscribe to a form of <a href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/18">Representational Functionalism</a> (RF), that claims that nothing more than the structure and dynamics of physics is needed for consciousness. Nevertheless, I think that there is value in comparing the arguments for MPD with those for FPD, since I believe that there are compelling reasons to prefer FPD over MPD if one is forced to chose between these two theories.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">A major criticism of the computational model of consciousness raised by <a href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7">Material Property Dualists</a>, against both FPD and RF, is that all information must be "interpreted" before it could mean anything, or have qualia or consciousness, while <a href="http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/8">Functional Property Dualists</a> claim that it is the functional properties of the system that carries the dual properties that lead to consciousness. MPD posits that only matter can carry the "property" of consciousness, a "dual" property, beyond its causal properties, which form the structure and dynamics of physics. It is easy to understand why they feel this way. After all, why would nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeros have any subjective experience, no matter how much complexity is contained in the organization of the ones and zeros. This is all very intuitively pleasing. And a similar argument seems to show that the structure and dynamics of physics alone shouldn't lead to experience either. It should lead to all the behavior we have, including our claims to experience, but (these people argue) one can imagine all that structure and dynamics taking place like the wheels of a clock, completely absent any subjective experience. RF, which I prefer, responds to this criticism by claiming that nothing "more" than the structure and dynamics of physics is actually needed, even though it intuitively feels like something more is needed (our intuitions are wrong). In contrast, FPD gets around this argument by admitting that something "more" is indeed needed, but they tie the "more" to the information/functional properties of the system instead of to the matter. Supporters of MPD usually respond to this argument by claiming that the information in the functional system needs something to help "interpret" it correctly, and that the ones and zeros by themselves are simply random bits of information, with no proper interpretation, and thus, with no experience. Thus, they claim that the "more" must reside in the fundamental properties of matter in some way.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">
On the surface, these arguments seem to be quite compelling. However, the Maxwell's Demon thought experiment, indicates something strange. We know from relativity that we can turn matter into energy and
<span style="font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">vice versa</span>. <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428670/entangled-particles-break-classical-law-of/">But now we also know that we can also convert INFORMATION into matter or energy and vice versa</a>. <span style="font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">This has important implications for the whole consciousness debate between MPD and FPD. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.666666984558105px;">
<div>
<br />
Why? Because it seems to mean that the universe is made of something fundamental, namely matter / energy / information, and that these three things are nothing more than three different manifestations of the same fundamental entity. Much as water, steam, and ice are all different manifestations of the same fundamental entity. Thus, if matter can carry some "fundamental" interpretation that allows consciousness (as MPD claims), then so can information (as FPD claims). And there is no reason to suppose that matter is any "better" at carrying this fundamental property that allows for the interpretation of experience than is information. Therefore, inasmuch as the single objection to FPD (proper interpretation) has been removed, and there are compelling reasons to prefer FPD over MPD (we haven't found any evidence of specific materials that perform this function in the brain, and David Chalmer's "<a href="http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html">fading qualia</a>" and "<a href="http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html">dancing qualia</a>" thought experiments STRONGLY indicate that consciousness must be found in the functional aspects of the brain, not in its material properties), it seems that we should all now prefer FPD over MPD.<br />
<br />
This observation doesn't say much about the continuing debate between Representational Functionalism (RF) and FPD, (where I strongly prefer RF for reasons related to the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxzSyLAj3NI">epiphenomenalism argument</a>). However, it does indicate that MPD should largely be removed from consideration as a potential solution to the problem of consciousness. The remaining debate must largely be between Functional Property Dualism and Representational Functionalism. </div>
</div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-18981855626242410062012-04-24T14:56:00.001-07:002019-12-02T14:04:36.764-07:00The Essentials of Epistemology<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>The Essentials of Epistemology (the study of how to discover the truth):
</u></b></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlcarroll/5503883422/in/photostream"><img alt="Now we See Through a Glass, Darkly" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK-N2hXP227_EGWc6YLQuSHgpLjB1s946Zqa977HZhzYFkqroXUgSOniSdARUj-6ea57MgNHuQcb_1TjyKHdPJEIQFyPhwEnklHX6DATkt8xUL5IyCHXRix2nx55Ms8mkaAnTsV3i8BEsF/s320/5503883422_9d23cebc9d.jpg" title="Now we See Through a Glass, Darkly" width="213" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlcarroll/5503883422/in/photostream">Now we See Through a Glass, Darkly</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
How can we tell the difference between truth and error, between fact and fiction, between conspiracy fact and conspiracy theory? Naturally, the best solution is to become an expert. But unfortunately you can't become an expert without first learning what information to trust, and what information to ignore. Furthermore, it is impossible for everyone to be experts on everything. So we all eventually have to trust the advice of others. But <b>whose</b> advice should we trust? These questions are becoming increasingly important in the world of the internet, where everyone has been given a printing press, and where false (and even dangerous) ideas spread like wildfire.
<br />
<br />
I do research in statistics, which is the study of how to determine truth from data and make rational decisions based upon this data. So I naturally have some opinions on the matter. But explaining these principles to others outside the field of statistics can be a challenge. And it is not reasonable to expect everyone to get a degree in statistics before they try to sort through the difference between truth and error.
<br />
<br />
So, how should the average person determine truth from error? There is no magical approach that will guarantee that you are never deceived or mistaken. But I believe that there are a few simple principles that will lead you to the truth more often than other approaches. They are:
<br />
<br />
<b>1. Simplicity:</b> The simplest theory is to be preferred over the more complex theory, all other things being equal (which has bearing on #4 as well).
<br />
<br />
<b>2. Data over Dogmatism (be willing to change your mind):</b> Let the data speak for itself as much as possible, don't assume that the answer must match some ideological or dogmatic assumption. Be as dispassionate and rational as possible. Allow your opinions to change when the data contradicts your initial opinions.
<br />
<br />
<b>3. Avoid Confirmation Bias:</b> People naturally tend to seek out data that confirms their initial opinions (this is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">confirmation bias</a>), while reacting to new data that contradicts their original belief with even more fervent adherence to the original belief (<a href="http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/">the backfire effect</a>). This means that the luck of the draw for what you believed first has an unfair advantage. Therefore, be sure to actively look for data that contradicts your initial opinions, and do your very very best, as hard as it can be, to treat such new data fairly. (Conservatives should watch PBS, CNN, and BBC, while liberals should watch Fox News). It is only after you have read and understood the opinions of those that disagree with you, that you can be confident that you are actually right.
<br />
<br />
<b>4. Avoid Conspiracy Theories:</b> Although real conspiracies do exist (usually very small ones), assuming that all data counter to your initial belief is due to a vast conspiracy to hide the truth is problematic, because first, it vastly over simplifies the reality where each person has their own (often contradictory) goals and motivations, which generally limits the real conspiracies in size and scope; second, most people want to do good, and those that do evil usually do it because they have convinced themselves that it is the right thing to do; and third (and most important) it creates a situation where your opinion (right or wrong), can never be contradicted by evidence, no matter how strong or otherwise convincing. This is an especially dangerous flavor of confirmation bias (see #3 above).
<br />
<br />
<b>5. Trust the Experts: </b>Because we can't personally experience everything, we must trust the opinions of others that have experienced things that we have not. Assuming that white elephants don't exist because you haven't seen one is foolish if others have. Thus, a large percentage of our understanding of the world around us must be based upon the witness and opinions of others. Our task is often to determine which witnesses to believe, and which opinions to trust. When deciding which experts to believe, always assign more weight to the opinions of people who know more about the subject, than you do to people who know less about the subject. This means that we should trust and respect the experts in their fields. Look for issues and ideas where there is a strong consensus among the experts in a given field. And be careful of internet sources. Some 60 year old guy blogging in his underwear from his parent's basement does not a reliable expert make.<br />
<br />
I understand that most human progress was made when people
like Galileo challenged expert views on things like whether the earth
was at the center of the solar system. But Galileo also understood that
challenging this consensus required careful study and very strong
evidence. He then went out and did the difficult legwork to gather, summarize, present, publish, and then defend that
evidence. And when he did, the consensus gradually changed. It is possible (and necessary) to occasionally challenge a consensus view, but it should require strong evidence <b>first</b>. To think that we know better than the vast majority of those around us without that very strong threshold of both effort and evidence is one important definition of pride.<br />
<br />
<b>6. Look for General but not Unanimous Consensus: </b>Understand that there will <a href="https://myantitweet.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/what-scientific-consensus-looks-like/" target="_blank">always be a few dissenting voices </a>on every issue. Don't assume that because you found a PhD physicist that thinks that the earth is flat that there is "controversy" among the scientific community on the issue, and that there is no scientific consensus on the matter, or think that the idea that the earth is a sphere is "only a theory", or that you should "teach the controversy" on this matter. Instead, look for general agreement among some large majority of the experts.
<br />
<br />
<b>7. Avoid Anecdotes and Emotional Stories:</b> Anecdotes are almost entirely useless, since there will always be an anecdote or two that seems to support any possible position that one could conceivably hold. Unfortunately, these anecdotal stories often have vast emotional impact, but that doesn't mean that they are right. Instead, look for broad statistically significant studies to find truth. They are less emotionally convincing, but they are far more likely to be right!
<br />
<br />
If you follow these 7 rules, you will undoubtedly be wrong on occasion. But you will be wrong less often than if you don't, and you will be willing to change your mind rapidly when more information showing that you were wrong becomes available. If you do this, you will be unlikely to be lead astray, and you will be far more likely to discover things as they really are, really were, and really will be.
<br />
<br />
So, how does that play out?<br />
<br />
In the vaccination debate, it means that we should pay more attention to reputable doctors than we do to Jenny McCarthy when talking about whether we should vaccinate. It means that while the emotional story of the child that died after being vaccinated may be more emotionally moving, it should not be as intellectually convincing as a broad based statistical study. And it means that we shouldn't be surprised to find a few MD's in both camps. But we should look at the broad consensus, and realize that the vast majority of reputable doctors favor vaccination. Therefore we should favor vaccination. There is no vast conspiracy to make vaccination look successful when it is not. Sure the pharmaceutical companies have the motivation to do this, but the vast array of doctors who care about their patients don't. At least not in a way that could cause this level of near universal support.
<br />
<br />
How would these principles play out in the <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100173661/climate-change-and-confirmation-bias-what-would-it-take-to-change-your-mind/">global warming debate</a>? I am sure you can immediately see the answer. How about evolution? Again, is the answer obvious? How about economics? For some economic issues, things are a bit more muddled, but that itself is a conclusion, namely that there is consensus on some important points, but disagreement on some others.We should likely be uncertain ourselves when it comes to the areas of expert disagreement. It is remarkably prideful to assume that we know for certain answers to controversial questions that so many other very intelligent people don't. <br />
<br />
What about the truthers? The birthers? Opposition to GMOs? And the list goes on and on and on.<br />
<br />
(For more thoughts on the 'wisdom of the crowd,' the 'marketplace of ideas' and the problems the internet has produced in these things, see my paper: "<a href="http://canonizer.com/files/2012_amplifying_final.pdf" target="_blank">Amplifying the Wisdom of the Crowd, Building and Measuring for Expert and Moral Consensus</a>" by myself and Brent Allsop.)jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-71817571544391052402012-01-17T10:12:00.000-07:002012-04-24T15:49:15.246-07:00The Singularity May not be Near, but You Have Yet to Convince MeI would like to take a moment to respond briefly to Michael Shermer's fascinating article: <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-the-year-9595"> "In the Year 9595, why the Singularity is not Near, but Hope Springs Eternal" in Scientific American, January 2012</a>.
<br />
<br />
Michael Shermer's rebuff of singularitarianism is witty and Interesting, but ultimately un-convincing. He makes fun of those who make predictions as "soothsayer's", but he seems to be ignoring the power of trends to often accurately predict future technological performance. His "baloney-detection alarm" may go off, but he provides no counter data. I prefer a data driven approach myself, and this article, witty as it was, was certainly not data driven. If the data says that this generation is most likely special, then it most likely is, Copenhagen principle or no.
<br />
<br />
Of course, trends don't always continue. But if they don't, in this case, I will be extremely interested in knowing why not, and it was this question that was never really addressed by Michael Shermer. For example, many people have argued that computational performance trends will not continue because we will hit the quantum limits of Moore's Law by 2015-2025. At least that would be a reasonable, although ultimately flawed, argument to make. But Shermer doesn't even do that. If he had, then he might have given me more to refute. For example, then I might have been able to discuss the fact that the human brain is a proof by example that it is possible to perform about 10^19 CPS for about 20 Watts, in a few cubic feet of space IF one is willing to change the architecture of the computer system from today's Von Neumann architecture to something more massively parallel. Which means that Moore's Law may stumble to a halt, but that there is plenty of room for computational improvement after the death of Moore's Law. Of course, progress down this new route may well follow a different trend, improving at a different speed. Progress may even slow for a time after the death of Moore's Law while we face up to the fact that we must switch directions before improvement can continue. But even if this is the case, since we are set to pass the upper bound for performing <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/110921261135277605330/Economy#5620432299391054642">a full neural simulation of the human brain by 2025</a>, Moore's Law will ultimately fail too late to stop the creation of the hardware needed for true AI.
<br />
<br />
Shermer did provide one data point, namely that knowing the wiring diagram of the nervous system of Caenorhabditis elegans, and having sufficiently powerful hardware to perform a full neural simulation has so far not lead to a working brain simulation of Caenorhabditis elegans. This is indeed an interesting data point. However, we appear to be making exponential progress at understanding the behavior of individual neurons, AND exponential progress at understanding the wiring diagrams of the brains of ever more complex organisms. Both. I argue that ONCE we thoroughly understand the behavior of individual neurons (and their many types/kinds, connections, and plasticity) THEN knowing the wiring diagram of ANY complexity is enough for full brain simulation. This is important to point out, because some singularitarians seem to think that once we have the wiring diagrams for human brains, and once we have the computational raw power, fully human level AI is inevitable. This is not true by any means. If computer trends continue, we will have the computational power to run <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/110921261135277605330/Economy#5620432299391054642">a full neural level brain simulation by about 2025 in our super computers</a>. But that doesn't mean that we will have the human connection diagram by that time, nor does it mean that we will have cracked the neuron by that time. However, we ARE making exponential progress on both fronts, so if we don't have these things by 2025, I would guess that we will have them by 2045... give or take 25 years or so either way. There is a lot of uncertainty there, mostly because we don't yet know exactly how complex the problem will be (the neural level modeling I mean, we have a descent idea about the other). Furthermore, the power to do the simulations will feed back on our neural understanding. We can plug one neural model into the simulation, and see how it runs, then compare to a real brain scan, and then tweak the simulation... rinse... repeat.... etc.
<br />
<br />
Essentially, I think that this man's skepticism is unfounded, or, at least, if it is founded, he failed miserably to explain why it is founded, or to be convincing in any meaningful way.jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-68270158876112153982011-08-18T11:50:00.003-07:002012-04-03T11:58:58.110-07:00James Carroll's Review of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution<div><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6117055-the-greatest-show-on-earth" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1302127919m/6117055.jpg" /></a><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6117055-the-greatest-show-on-earth">The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1194.Richard_Dawkins">Richard Dawkins</a><br /></div><div>My rating: <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/199132159">3 of 5 stars</a><br /><br /></div><div>This book was only so so, and there were two main reasons.<br /><br />First, his evidence:<br /><br />It simply wasn't that good. And it's not because there isn't good evidence for evolution. But the whole way through this book I kept thinking things like: "I could produce better evidence than that!" "Why didn't he mention this or that?" and, "Why is he talking about this, it's a huge digression?" etc. The evidence he provided is actually overwhelmingly convincing, the problem is that there is actually even better evidence out there that he didn't talk about (or that he only mentions in passing). I did learn about a few lines of evidence that I didn't know about before, so in that sense it was worth the time I spent. I just wish that he had done a better job, since I completely agree with him that we badly need this sort of a text today.<br /><br />Second, his atheism:<br /><br />Dawkins is a staunch atheist. Now, Dawkins claims that his primary purpose is to provide the evidence for evolution in order to save those who have been deluded by those he calls the "history deniers." That is his term for those creationists who deny the fact that evolution happened in order to cling to Biblical inerrancy. But if that was his goal, then he should have left his atheism on its shelf, at least for the duration of this text. In fact, in the introduction, he claims that this is what he is going to do. However, it appears that Dawkins is so enamored of his atheistic position that he is incapable of doing so, and I fear that it chased away the very people he was trying so hard to reach. </div><div><br /></div><div>I vastly preferred "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. That book is what this book should have been. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532">http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532</a> If you are looking for a good book on the evidence for evolution, Coyne's book is the one I would suggest instead.<br /><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/162048-james-carroll">View all my reviews</a></div><div><br /></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-60684563715967959432011-08-09T10:50:00.000-07:002012-08-27T15:27:59.002-07:00Book Review, Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design<div>
<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8520362-the-grand-design" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px;"><img alt="The Grand Design" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1277911495m/8520362.jpg" /></a><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8520362-the-grand-design">The Grand Design</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1401.Stephen_Hawking">Stephen Hawking</a></div>
<div>
My rating: <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/196505518">4 of 5 stars</a><br />
<br /></div>
<div>
"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." Stephen Hawking</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I couldn't agree with that statement more. Some of his other conclusions in the book from which the quote was taken "The Grand Design"... not so much.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But in what way is philosophy dead? Clearly the love of wisdom is not dead, but it may well be that the field of liberal arts philosophy may indeed be dead (or at least loosing relevance and productivity). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To attempt to discover the real truth requires more than sitting and thinking, it requires observation, and then modeling, which requires math. This means that today the mathematicians and physicists are doing the real leg work of philosophy, while the liberal arts philosophers are, for the most part, spinning their wheels. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is a feeling that theology and philosophy should be the ones asking the questions about morality, theology, meaning, and God, while science should keep its distance. But I believe that you can't ask these questions correctly without a firm grounding in the observations of science and physics, which MUST inform any inquiry into philosophy, or even theology. As Einstein said, science without theology is lame (in the sense of not having the power to move things forward), while theology without science is blind (in the sense of moving forward, but not seeing where it is really going). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Therefore, I find that I simply can not agree with those that say that science should leave such theological matters to religion. In my view, Stephen Hawking has every right to venture into the field of theology, and to bravely see what implications his understanding of the laws of physics has on his understanding of God. This is a useful and potentially very productive undertaking.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let us take some of Hawking's conclusions in this book as an example, and see how science can inform theology:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. In the beginning, the universe was very small, thus the rules of Quantum Mechanics hold, and things like the universe can (and indeed will) appear out of nothing without violating the rules of quantum mechanics, so long as it eventually cancels itself out, just as virtual particles usually do.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. The universe has an equal amount of positive and negative energy, and so is a cosmic free lunch, and can (and will) appear out of nothing (essentially, the universe cancels itself out, much like virtual particles do).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3. But the universe was also hugely massive, so it followed not only the rules of quantum mechanics, but also the rules of relativity, which says that mass bends space and time, and at the point where you have enough mass to make a black hole (as we clearly had in the early universe), time itself stops, so there IS no time before the big bang, time curves back upon itself, and comes to a single closed point, creating a beginning not only of the universe, but of time itself, and thus it creates a beginning to the chain of causation. The chain of causation (where the causes come before the results) comes to an end at the Big bang, which necessarily had no cause, because there was no time before the big bang for that cause to act in. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
His conclusion? There is no God in the platonic sense of the "prime mover" or "first cause" because 1. we don't need him to explain how and why the universe could come into being, (quantum mechanics does that) and 2. there could be no creator of the universe, because there was no time before the universe was created for Him to act in. Essentially, God could not "cause" the universe, because relativity guarantees that there was no time in which he could act to initiate such a cause, and after the big bang bangs, we don't need Him to explain the progression of the universe from that point on (the laws of nature do that). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Whether or not you agree with these conclusions (which I do not), it is clear that a firm understanding of the issues surrounding quantum mechanics should indeed necessarily inform our theology. Even if his reasoning here is flawed, that is the way science works. It is necessary for someone to make these sorts of inferences, so that science can move forward and either prove or disprove this theory.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, why don't I come to the same conclusions as Hawking? His reasoning appears rather solid at first glance. However, relativity and quantum mechanics are notorious for their inability to play nicely together, and there are a myriad of potential theories that have been proposed in an attempt to produce a good theory of quantum gravity. He is here espousing one of these theories, granted, it is the one that is (so far) the most mathematically robust, but it is by no means the only solution to this problem. For example, some theories of quantized time predict a big bounce instead of a big bang, in which case there was indeed time before the big bang. Another competing theory predicts that two of the membranes predicted by M-theory collided, producing the big bang, again, this is a theory that predicts time before the big bang. Still other theories predict that there are other dimensions of time, outside of our own. It is also unclear to some whether quantum fluctuations can create virtual particles without space or time in which to create them, which could cast doubt on whether a quantum fluctuation alone could create the universe from no-where and no-when. For example, Sean Carroll proposes that each universe is born from parent universes (see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/From-Eternity-Here-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0525951334">From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time</a>), in which case, time would indeed exist before the big bang. The possibilities are nearly endless. And, most importantly, we have yet to find observations that can clearly differentiate between many of these competing theories. Essentially, we have no observationally verified theory of quantum gravity, which is necessary before we can make any real predictions of how the universe behaved in these early moments that are so essential to Hawking's arguments.</div>
<div>
<br />
So, if we take this into consideration, we can rephrase Stephen Hawking's brilliant deduction differently. IF we accept THIS theory of quantum gravity, together with its predictions about quantum fluctuations and the beginning of time, THEN the universe necessarily had no cause within our dimension of time, and thus, there is no God that exists solely within our universe's dimension of time. I believe that this is a valid deduction, and, to some extent, it should inform our understanding of God. It is only unfortunate that he didn't state his conclusions with this level of cautiousness. Instead, he is far more confident in his conclusions than is warranted by the data, and he leaves out the many "if"s that should have preceded his conclusion. This was perhaps my only serious disagreement with the Book.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And what of my own conclusions about God? That is not really what this review is about, but to be short:</div>
<div>
<br />
Theleologians in my chosen branch of Christianity have often said that God does not just predict the future, he quite literally sees it. For this to be the case, God must, of necessity, exist outside of our dimension of time, and likely outside of our dimensions of space as well. I find the fact that science is now predicting a universe of multiple dimensions and multiple universes (some with different laws of physics), and is finding that God cannot exist only within our dimension of time and still create the universe, to be quite faith promoting since that is in line with what I believed all along. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Stephen Hawking would likely take issue with my interpretation of his work, but hey, that is what Science is all about, and we should be grateful to Stephen Hawking for so clearly expressing this brilliant deduction. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/162048-james-carroll">View all my reviews</a></div>
jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-2459600521896900162011-07-21T10:08:00.000-07:002011-07-21T10:13:50.267-07:00Is the Singularity Near or Far?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; ">In this article, titled "The Singularity is Far", <a href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singularity-is-far-a-neuroscientists-view?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a40a06de5c-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email" class="ot-anchor" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; ">http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singularity-is-far-a<wbr>-neuroscientists-view?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+<wbr>Newsletter&utm_campaign=a40a06de5c-UA-946742-1&utm<wbr>_medium=email</a> David J. Linden challenges many of Kurzweil's timetables for the reverse engineering of the Human Brain. His primary argument is that although data is growing exponentially, our understanding of that data appears to be growing only linearly.<br /><br />Lincoln Cannon challenged this article's premises here:<a href="http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2011/07/singularity-merits-understanding-but.html" class="ot-anchor" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; ">http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2011/07/singularity-<wbr>merits-understanding-but.html</a><br /><br />Lincoln's response was well thought out, and he had some excellent points.<br /><br />Lincoln's primary argument seems to be that we don't need understanding, just simulation and scanning resolution. "In a sense, it would be like riding a bike versus understanding the physics of riding bike; we can do the former without the latter." I essentially agree with him there. It is indeed possible to develop a singularity like event using simulation without understanding.<br /><br />However, when Kurzweil made his predictions, he assumed that functional simulation would require much less computational power than would a full simulation. Essentially, Kurzweil assumed that we would use the power of "understanding" to create algorithms that are more efficient than the brain, and his entire time table was based upon this assumption. If we are instead going to assume that we will use simulation without understanding to do the trick of creating the singularity, then we must recognize that the computing power needed will be far greater, and this will move the time table for the Singularity far back from Kurzweil's predictions.<br /><br />There are several reasons why I reject Kurzweil's time tables for the Singularity:<br /><br />When I look at most of the technology trend data, I tend to see exponentials where Kurzweil sees double exponentials. Furthermore, although I do see exponentials trends in our data gathering abilities, like David J. Linden, I see linear progress in our understanding of that flood of data. I actually believe that understanding is most likely on an exponential trend too, but it is just in the early, nearly linear, beginning of an exponential that will take time to "ramp up" to the knee of the curve. But it's hard to map numbers to brain "understanding" and so it is hard to predict when this shift will take place.<br /><br />Kurzweil's time table is based on 10^14-10^16th cps to simulate the functionality of the brain, something that would require re-writing the brain's algorithms in a more efficient manner, and that requires understanding. To go the "simulation without understanding" rout you need more like 10^19th cps. That would push many of the dates for Kurzweil's predictions back several years at least.<br /><br />10^19 cps should arrive in super computers by 2022-2025 according to my last projections. <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5620432299391054642" class="ot-anchor" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 204); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; ">https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#562<wbr>0432299391054642</a>. This really isn't in time to meet Kurzweil's deadlines, because he predicts strong AI at about the time when the computation necessary to simulate the brain hits $1000, not when it can be done only on the world's most expensive supercomputers. In other words, he predicts that we will have good strong AI simulations AFTER we have had clumsy ones in a super computer for a while, after we have some time to study and perfect the clumsy ones, and then only after they get cheap enough to work really well and become ubiquitous.<br /><br />Down the "simulation without understanding" road, you need 10^19th cps to hit $1000 instead of only needing 10^16th cps to hit $1000, and that shouldn't happen until significantly after 2022 when our fastest super computers should be able to do it. My last prediction put this landmark at about 2058! And that assumes that the doubling rate of cps/$ doesn't slow after Moore's Law hits the quantum barrier somewhere between 2020-2025. If it slows, which it might, then this could take even longer. I will admit that if I am wrong, things don't slow down but speed up, and if there is a double exponential at work here that I can't find, then this might happen significantly sooner. Nevertheless, even then, it would still happen some time after Kurzweil's deadline if you use a simulation without understanding paradigm.<br /><br />In other words, I may buy into many of Kurzweil's predictions, but I find that I must also question some of his timetables.</span>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-11488771697604378182011-06-14T13:06:00.001-07:002013-11-20T11:07:03.221-07:00GDP, Going Further Back, Optimism Again<div style="text-align: left;">
I earlier blogged about <a href="http://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2011/05/welcome-to-future-why-i-am-optimist.html">Why I am an Optimist</a>. In that post I presented the following graph of GDP between 1930-2011:</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="photo photo_none" style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div class="photo_img" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5602612348691457234"><img class="img" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_veb4vkaQQVQ/TcB6P0n4pNI/AAAAAAAAAkA/Rq949Q1y4bs/s1152/image2993.png" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 493px;" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: 11px; line-height: 12px;">My Per Capita, inflation adjusted GDP graph for 1930-2011.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: 11px; line-height: 12px;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I was fascinated by the exponential growth in GDP, even in inflation adjusted per-capita GDP, and craved more data. Since getting data from the future by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatoscopy">Hepatoscopy</a> failed (mostly because I couldn't find a good lamb to sacrifice and read its liver), I decided to take the more practical rout, and look further into the past instead. Granted, looking further into the past is usually not as exciting as looking further into the future, but we will take what we can get until we invent that pesky time machine.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In any event, I looked around the internet for some more data, and found <a href="http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/HS-8_2003.pdf">this data</a>, which I summarize in the following graph:</div>
</div>
<div class="photo photo_none" style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div class="photo_img" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/jlcarroll/Economy#5618102525643659698"><img class="img" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kINSI8n56mY/TfeCeyi3GbI/AAAAAAAAAoc/1NFaBlC7eN4/s1152/1-2001GDP.png" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 493px;" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: 11px; line-height: 12px;">My Per Capita, inflation adjusted GDP graph for 1 AD - 2001 AD.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What interested me most about this data was that it indicates that for the last 2000 years, inflation adjusted, per-capita GDP has been growing at a super exponential rate. This means that not only is the GDP growing exponentially, but the rate at which it is growing exponentially is itself growing exponentially. </div>
</div>
<div class="photo photo_none" style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="photo photo_none" style="clear: both; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
But what exactly does it mean for GDP to be growing at a super exponential rate?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What it means is that <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html">trade, specialization</a>, technology, and automation have been making us all more productive and more wealthy. And it means that the rate at which have been making us more productive and wealthy has been increasing. And that the rate at which this rate is increasing has itself been increasing. All the wars, dark ages, inquisitions, famines, natural disasters, genocides, recessions, and depressions of the past 2000 years have only been minor bumps along the road to increased prosperity when viewed from the perspective of this 2000 year sweep of history.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What would it mean if this trend were to continue? We can only guess, but something like the end of scarcity, and the beginning of overwhelming world wide prosperity would be one such guess, and would be a reasonable one at that! Insuring that this outcome is actually produced will naturally require a certain amount of effort on our part, but I believe that that will be effort well spent. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-27725954031221869922011-05-26T11:50:00.001-07:002011-05-26T11:51:33.098-07:00Some housekeepingBecause I want a place to ramble about economics and politics, and because my photography viewers aren't usually interested in that, and because my politics people aren't usually interested in my photography, I decided to split the blog.<br /><br />Politics, economics, computers stuff, transhumanism, all that will stay here. If you are looking for my photography stuff, go here:<div><br /></div><div><a href="http://jlcphotography.blogspot.com/">http://jlcphotography.blogspot.com/</a></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-20761459929081596932011-05-10T08:57:00.000-07:002011-06-14T13:42:29.667-07:00Welcome to the Future, Why I am an Optimist<b>Introduction:</b><br /><br />There is a tendency to talk about "the good old days" and to talk about how much better things were "back then." However, our view of such things tends to be nostalgic, and more than a little skewed. We think that "back then, there wasn't so much violence" or "back then the economy worked" or "back then our people still had a moral compas." The truth of the matter may be very different from what we think.<br /><br /><b>Optimism, Economic:</b><br /><br />A little while ago, I posted a chart I had created on the US GDP to facebook. I created this chart because I was curious about how the current recession had affected the US GDP. This is what I came up with:<br /><br /><div><div class="photo photo_none" style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; clear: both; "><div class="photo_img" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "><img class="img" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_veb4vkaQQVQ/TcB6P0n4pNI/AAAAAAAAAkA/Rq949Q1y4bs/s1152/image2993.png" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; width: 493px; " /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-size: 11px; line-height: 12px; ">My Per Capita, inflation adjusted GDP graph.</span></div></div><p style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; "></p><br />What I was most interested in, was the way that mechanization and computerization had allowed our work to be increasingly more productive. Thus, I divided the GDP numbers by the US population each year, producing a per/capita inflation adjusted GDP. For the same amount of labor, we were now producing substantially more wealth, and this was a trend that our current recession had barely put a dent in. Of course, all that assumes that GDP is a good measure of "productivity."<br /><br />However, as a friend of mine pointed out, GDP is often not a good measure of "productivity." He cited the following <a href="http://www.johnmauldin.com/images/uploads/pdf/mwo050911.pdf">article</a> by John Mauldin. This was a very interesting read. John advocates the use of a "private sector" only GDP, as well as what he calls a "Structural" GDP, which is a measure of the GOP that does not arize from deficit spending.<br /><blockquote>Consumption is not prosperity. The credit-addicted family measures its success by how much it is able to spend, applauding any new source of credit, regardless of the family income or ability to repay. The credit-addicted family enjoys a rising “family GDP”—consumption—as long as they can find new lenders, and suffers a family “recession” when they prudently cut up their credit cards.<br /><br />In much the same way, the current definition of GDP causes us to ignore the fact that we are mortgaging our future to feed current consumption. Worse, like the creditaddicted family, we can consciously game our GDP and GDP growth rates—our consumption and consumption growth—at any levels our creditors will permit!</blockquote>I disagree with his focus on "private sector GDP" (because the government can produce services and products too), but applaud his use of what he calls "structural GDP" which is the GDP minus the GDP that comes from deficit spending. In that domain, our current recession has cost us about 15 or so years of "progress."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="photo photo_none" style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; clear: both; "><div class="photo_img" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "><img class="img" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_veb4vkaQQVQ/Tclj-k6eltI/AAAAAAAAAkg/lCIqBWLvvTA/UnrealGDP.jpg" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; width: 493px; " /></div><div class="caption" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-size: 11px; line-height: 12px; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 0px; text-align: left; ">John Mauldin's GDP graph, http://www.johnmauldin.com/images/uploads/pdf/mwo050911.pdf</div></div><p style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; "></p><p style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; "></p><p style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; text-align: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; "></p><br />Yet even this bleak view of our current recession, with the recession costing us about 15 years of "progress" in structural GDP, admits that there IS progress. His real, inflation adjusted, per capita structural GDP has been going up, and up, and up since 1944, with a minor hiccup that is our recession. I really wish that he had taken his graphs back further in time so that we could see the "great" depression and compare it to today's recession, but he did not. You can however, see the great depression in my graph, although not in "structural" GDP terms. It would appear that our current problems are actually quite minor when taken into the grand scheme of things. I am sure that provides little solace for a family out of work and struggling to get by, but it should privide hope that this won't last forever, and that things will eventually get better.<br /><br />In any event, progress has been made, and there is every reason to believe that more progress will be made in the long term. Today, we live substantially better than our parents, even if we live slightly worse than we did 10 years ago. And we live a LOT better than our grandparents did.<br /><br />In fact, I am not entirely convinced that we actually do live worse than we did 10 years ago, despite the "structural GDP" figures. Our structural GDP may have dipped, but think about this: Compare your access to information with your access 10 years ago, with the internet, cell phones, dish TV, Wikipedia, etc. Look at your access to advanced software. Look at your access to entertainment. 10 years ago your car didn't have a DVD player in the back, you didn't have a vast collection of DVD's, and Blue Ray disks with HD TV's didn't exist. 10 years ago you played Star Craft I instead of Star Craft II. Your digital camera today is VASTLY superior to the one you likely owned 10 years ago, and it was substantially cheaper despite inflation!<br /><br />And if we go further back, your great-grandfather's car was a horse.... you get the picture.<br /><br />John pointed out how GDP can over estimate how well we are doing by pretending that deficit spending is real. But GDP can also vastly under estimate our current standard of living, because it can ignore the depreciation of goods and services, especially in the computing and electronic markets.<br /><br />Computing power/$ doubles about every year, which means that every dollar of that GDP buys twice as much computing power each year (and is therefore twice as valuable). That affects our standard of living from the gadget perspective, and since gadgets are in more and more of our products, it affects more and more of our lives, from entertainment to healthcare. This process will only accelerate, as gadgets are found in more and more places, from our sun glasses to our clothes, and eventually within our own bodies.<br /><br />Similar "depreciations" have happened in the communication domain. Compare mail to e-mail. Compare e-mail with video chat. Our ability to connect with each other, to share ideas, and to stay in touch has improved by vast orders of magnitude over just the last few years.<br /><br />Similar "depreciations" have happened in some of the materials markets. Yes, many raw materials have gone up in price drastically. But at the same time we have been developing new materials, (carbon fiber anyone?) stronger, lighter, and cheaper than the materials we used before. Again, there is no reason to assume that this trend will not continue.</div><div><br /></div><div>Industrialization, automation, and mechanization have cost us some jobs. But they have also created many jobs, and these new jobs produce more goods and services for less. Real wealth and standard of living is found in the consumption of such good and services. The cheaper they get, the more we can consume, and the higher our standard of living. Again, this is a case where GDP can under-estimate our prosperity.<br /><br />More improvements have been made in health care. Although again we still have a long way to go, miracles are happening right before our eyes each and every day. The blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, more and more of those with cancer survive. There has never been a better time to live.<br /><br /><b>Optimism, Violence:</b><br /><br />In the last few years, there have been quite a few wars. Violence appears to be everywhere. The Middle East is exploding, and the US is currently involved in THREE separate conflicts in the Middle East at the same time. As if this isn't enough, there are numerous conflicts in South America, and Africa. Many of them appear to be right on the edge of exploding. The world certainly seems to be quite the violent place. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yet we must ask ourselves, is this perception of increased violence accurate? Certainly there is some serious violence going on, and we shouldn't downplay this fact. There is much that we can (and should) do to make the world a better (and less violent) place. But <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html">the simple fact of the matter</a> is that "In fact, our ancestors were far more violent than we are, violence has been in decline for long stretches of time, and that today, we are probably living in the most peaceful time in our species existence." (By the way, I HIGHLY recommend watching <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html">this talk</a>, it will change your view of everything). This same talk addresses issues such as homicide and crime, which also appear to be improving drastically.<br /><br /><b>Mis:</b><br /><br />The potential for the use of nuclear weapons has unfortunately increased with the fall of the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons have spread to many smaller, third world countries, and the potential that nuclear weapons might get into the hands of a terrorist who would use them has unfortunately gone up. As frightening as this prospect is, the world is actually much safer from complete nuclear annihilation today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Although the potential for an isolated use of an atomic weapon has increased, the potential for a large, world wide distruction (Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD) has dropped dramatically since the fall of the Soviet Union.<br /><br />Who would have thought in the 80's that the Soviet Union was about to fall, and who would have thought in 2009 that Democratic reforms and revolutions were about to spread across the Middle East. Around the world, governments are becoming more democratic, human rights are improving (although we still have a long way to go), and world poverty levels are dropping.<br /><br />Let Freedom Ring.<br /><br />The civil rights movements have changed our perceptions of racism for ever. African apartheid has fallen. Women's rights movements have done much to improve gender inequalities. In just a short few hundred years we went from a situation where blacks were slaves and women could not vote, to the point where our greatest arguments about "equal rights" seem to be about defining marriage. The very fact that this is an issue at all, indicates just how far we have come. Who would have thought just 20 years ago that today we would have a black president. Regardless of what you think about the job that he is doing, the very fact that we have such a man as president gives some impression of just how far we have come.<br /><br /><b>Conclusions:</b><br /><br />There appear to be a LOT of reasons to be optimistic about the future. I think I will let Brad Paisley summ things up for me: </div><div><br /></div><iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0Yg9wjctRw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Yg9wjctRw&feature">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Yg9wjctRw&feature</a> Welcome to the future everyone.<br /><br />(I continue these thoughts <a href="http://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2011/06/gdp-going-further-back-optimism-again.html">here</a>).</div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608365326748641028.post-53668529093401014302011-04-15T15:37:00.001-07:002011-04-18T08:40:41.775-07:00The Mustard Seed<div>This is a continuation of my "<a href="http://jlcarroll.blogspot.com/2011/03/inspired-by-photography-challenge.html">You Inspired Me</a>" photography challenge. You can see the results of these challenges <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlcarroll/sets/72157626261416228/with/5311206366/">here</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><h2>This Week's Challenge:</h2></div><div><br /></div><div>This week, a friend challenged me with this photo from my favorites:</div><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/19011707@N02/5551500657/in/faves-jlcarroll/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5551500657_884674cfe3_m.jpg" border="0" alt="" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: auto; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 170px; " /></a></div><div><div>By <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/19011707@N02/with/5551500657/">Just Joe</a> over on <a href="http://www.flickr.com/">Flickr</a>.<br /></div><br /><div></div><div></div><div>What I liked most about the source picture was the way they used a simple image of a simple item in order to represent a complex religious idea. I loved how the image uses the nature of the item to convey the message. In this case, the Bible is well worn and clearly well used, and thereby conveys the faith and dedication of its owner. I loved how clearly this complex idea is conveyed by this simple object. Nothing but the object in question was needed to convey the idea. It is this ability to apply the attributes of one object to another that is at the heart of religious symbolism. I wanted to find a single item that I could photograph that would have some attribute that would powerfully convey a religious idea. </div><div><br /></div><div>As with all my "you inspired me" photographs, I didn't just want to duplicate the source photo exactly, so a simple picture of a well worn Bible was out. I started to rifle through my collection of religious items, and I found a plastic container full of mustard seeds that I purchased while in Israel. I was i<span class="Apple-style-span">mmediately excited by the idea. Mustard seeds already have a powerful and immediate religious significance for most people. This is due to Jesus' comparison of mustard seeds with both the "kingdom of God" and with "faith." Luke records that Jesus said: "Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it" (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/13?lang=eng">Luke 13:18-19</a>); and "the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you" (<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/17.6?lang=eng#5">Luke 17:5-6</a>).<br /></span></div><div><br /></div>However, it occurred to me that taking a picture of the idea behind the mustard seed wouldn't be as simple as taking a picture of a Bible on a white background. The attribute of interest with the Bible photograph was the worn and well used nature of the Bible. But the attribute of interest with the mustard seed is its small size. I had to find a way to take a picture of the mustard seed that made its size clear, and to do that, I knew that I would need something else in the background that would make the size of the mustard seed obvious. This presented a unique photographic challenge: how to create a composition that focused on the mustard seed, while including enough contextual clews to indicate their size.<br /><br />My first idea was the clinical approach, simply photograph the seeds with a ruler in the background. This approach appealed to the scientist in me, and this is the result:</div><div><center><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlcarroll/5622590093/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5028/5622590093_c4c6b59249_m.jpg" /></a></center></div><div><br /><div>Mustard seeds grow in reasonably sized pods, while the seeds inside are smaller than a grain of sand. What I liked most about this picture is that I was able to include both the pod, and several of the very small seeds it contained. But while the clinical metric ruler conveys the size of the objects rather exactly, it doesn't do so very intuitively. For that I needed to try something else. This was what I came up with:</div><div><br /></div><div><center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlcarroll/5622588607/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5263/5622588607_4411c8376c_m.jpg" /></a></center></div><div>I really love how this picture immediately gives you an idea of the sizes involved. Unfortunately, this composition made it more difficult to include the pod in the picture, but I believe that this drawback was well worth it. </div><div><br /></div><div><h2>Next Week's Challenge:</h2></div><div><br /></div><div>For next week's challenge, my wife selected this picture as a tribute to spring: </div><div><br /><center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthews-photography/5524956336/in/faves-jlcarroll/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5524956336_4d89834b33_m.jpg" /></a></center><div>By <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthews-photography/">Matthew</a> on <a href="http://www.flickr.com/">Flickr</a>.</div><div><br /></div>What I liked most about this picture was its use of selective focus, with a strong diagonal composition in the background. Although the selective focus forces the flowers to be the focus of the image, the path and grass are still important compositional elements, providing line, direction, and balance. I am excited to try my hand at these compositional ideas, and I am especially excited to get out and take my first shots of all the new life that is appearing everywhere as part of Spring. </div></div>jlcarroll@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08870174344823829934noreply@blogger.com0