Kenneth Chang

A linear infection rate doesn't make biological sense. Testing hasn't been increasing linearly either. And I don't see anything suggesting sublinear in the US data (on the log graf). I've been waiting anxiously for that. You're good w/ numbers. Show me.

The log graph is clearly sublinear, yes? That means the original graph is sub-exponential.

Though again, the human eye isn't great at analyzing graphs objectively. And you're right. An infection doesn't grow linearly. It grows logistically.

For Italy, it's sublinear. For the U.S., it's straight, with a slight upward curve the last few days, which could be the result of increased testing in New York, but even that is a slight deviation.

Which again makes sense because the US has been jacking up the number of test kits it's been ordering and tests being given. You completely fail to take into account rate of testing. That's poor science, and on par with what antivaxxers do with autism rates!

Linear + linear is still linear, with a steeper slope. It's not exponential. You can scribble that down calculation, right?

The operation isn't addition but multiplication.

Look. If you have 5% of the population effected, randomly sample, and you run 100 tests, what's the average number of positives you'd get? 5. If 10% of the population is effected, and you run 200 tests, what do you get? 20. If you have 15% of the population effected, and