Just added data.
Ok. Something good happened (I think). California revised it’s reported numbers. Normally, I hate this because then I have to back and reconcile everything. But last time I reported on Calif I was bummed because there was an obvious inflection in the the deaths curve, which typically means secondary infection.
But, as it turns out… they revised the official record… and voila! No inflection point. (I’m happy for my mama!) There remains a glitch in the data, but the rest follows as we normally expect. I give you two graphs, one smoothed and one not. Because of the change in data, I also included a fine tuning of the parameters, and I show you a smoothed plot for that. I also include a reference graph/citation from Wiki. I’ma perta’ happy right’a now!
Just added data.
Huge jump in detected cases. When we see a huge jump in cases, but no change in deaths, that is good. It usually means a testing anomaly.
The model predicts 82 deaths *tomorrow* and that is what the deaths were *today*. An increase of 17 more deaths today is serious, but not reason for panic. In California, ten people die each day in car accidents.
So for now, I’d stick with testing anomaly; not an inflection point. But I am going to be paying attention tomorrow. My mom lives there, and she is vulnerable.
If the governor is trying to scare us; it is working. The initial projection of 115 is probably going to be low, because we are just only over the projected peak. Probably double. On a log scale, that is close. Let’s pray the count stays low. Prayin’ for you, Mom.
(You can see my personal biases at work here… gotta be extra careful. Go with the math; go with the math; go with the math…)
Just added the data. The deaths number was exact. So I suspect the bump up in reported cases is a testing artifact. California dreamin’…