ABCNEWS

By business reporter Gareth Hutchens

There's a reason Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Australia's households may have to self-isolate for another six months.

It's the maths.

There's a mathematical law driving the growth in the number of coronavirus cases globally, which makes health experts so fearful.

Frustratingly, some of Australia's highest-paid commentators can't wrap their heads around it, which is why they're telling their listeners and readers the Government is overreacting by shuttering parts of the economy and enforcing strict social distancing measures for the winter.

The human brain wasn't built to think naturally about complicated mathematical phenomena. It's fine with basic maths, like simple percentages.

After a certain level of education, the brain intuitively understands that if you put $100 in a savings account with a 1 per cent interest rate, you'll have $101 after a specific period.

But the brain can turn to mush when faced with more complicated problems, if it hasn't been taught how to think them through.

 
 
A famous example is rice and chessboard problem.
 

If someone gave you a chessboard (which has 64 squares on it) and asked you to put one grain of rice on the first square, two grains of rice on the second square, four grains of rice on the third, eight grains on the fourth, and so on, how many grains of rice would end up on the 64th square?

It sounds like an easy question — it's simply asking you to double the number of rice grains from one square to the next, from 1 grain to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16 to 32 to 64, and so on, until the 64th square.

 

 What's the answer? You'd need 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 grains of rice for the 64th square.

That's nine quintillion, two hundred and twenty-three quadrillion, three hundred and seventy-two trillion, thirty-six billion, etc, grains.

And the amount of rice you'd need to cover the entire board — from squares 1 to 64 — would be 18.4 quintillion grains.

That's 923 times the entire estimated global production of rice this financial year.

The educational joy of that problem comes from the lesson that when something tiny begins expanding at a constant rate it can become mindbogglingly large within a surprisingly short amount of time.

It also reveals how the human brain struggles with the concept of exponential growth — it can't fathom how something growing slowly can suddenly explode in size.

That's the phenomenon driving the growth in the number of coronavirus cases globally, which is why the virus is so dangerous.

Fears for the US well-founded

It's also why people can look foolish when they complain that authorities in Australia are overreacting.

The total number of new cases of the virus is currently doubling every six to seven days in Australia. It's encouraging news, because last month the number of new cases was doubling every three to four days (according to the Grattan Institute).

It means our extreme efforts to slow the rate of contagion may be working.

But in the United States the situation is horrifying.

 

 

The total number of new cases there is doubling at a scary pace. According to the New York Times on Friday, the US death toll had grown six-fold in the previous eight days.

The healthcare system in some of its major cities is already at breaking point. New York is currently the country's ground zero, and the city's governor, Andrew Cuomo, says the city will run out of ventilators by the middle of this week.

They've built a field hospital in Central Park to cope with the overflow of critical patients.

A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump was still saying Democrats were overhyping the situation, claiming "this is their new hoax".

But now, a few weeks later, his administration admits 100,000 to 240,000 Americans will probably die from the virus — and that's its best-case scenario.

It demonstrates why an intuitive understanding of the maths of contagion is so important.

If you don't want a deadly virus to spread through a population to the point where it overwhelms your healthcare system and other institutions, it pays to try to slow the rate of growth in new cases as early as possible.

If you don't want your chessboard to start billowing grains of rice, you need to reduce the rate at which the rice is doubling.

Beware the 'second half of the chessboard'

In the late 1990s, the US inventor Ray Kurzweil wrote about the importance of the "second half of the chessboard", saying exponential growth is still crucial in the first half, but it's in the second half when growth appears to move into hyper-speed and the human mind gets overwhelmed.

Australia does not want to get anywhere near the second half of that board. 

Our healthcare system has finite resources — a small number of hospitals, nurses, doctors, surgeons, and equipment — which is a deliberate policy choice.

If we had 50,000 more hospitals, millions more medical staff, and all the equipment we needed, we wouldn't have to worry. But we can only work with the system we've built.

For Mr Morrison, if things go well in Australia and we "flatten the curve" of transmission to the point where our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed and we can crawl through the pandemic until a vaccine is discovered, he'll have to live with the fact that millions of Australians will believe he's wasted all that money — $213 billion in stimulus — and pushed the country into recession for nothing.

He's already acknowledged that.

It's similar to the problem former prime minister Kevin Rudd faced after he spent $67 billion to prevent Australia falling into recession during the global financial crisis.
 

But when it comes to financial markets, investors shrugged last week when a record 6.6 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits, with large parts of the US economy finally shutting down to impede the transmission of COVID-19.

It was the largest number of initial jobless claims in a single week in America's history, by a gigantic margin, but markets were more interested in Mr Trump's claim that Saudi Arabia and Russia would soon be cutting oil production by 10 million barrels a day in a bid to stabilise oil prices.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • I get exponential growth. What I have been saying is that with the restrictions in place it is only going to go exponential for about 3 chess squares before it reaches a dead end. At least while the number of cases is easily manageable by testing and identifying contacts. There is also the concept of critical mass to allow the virus to get past local dead ends - especially with the restrictions.

    The bad news for Australia is not the exponential growth because we got inearly enough to keep the number of chess squares of exponential growth to a minimum and only several hundred cases getting in in the first place.

    The bad news is that it appears that the decline in new cases may level off so that there will be a low level remaining virus that restrictions will not eradicate. That means the powder keg of exponential growth will remain with a low level of new cases to motivate bankrupting everybody. If the restrictions are lifted then we become like Italy.So that makes for difficult decisions. In this case politicians usually partially lift restrictions until the threat increases to enough new cases to get everyone frightened enough to accept reinstatement of crippling restrictions.

     

  • Should we all go to the Gap at Watsons Bay and jump?

    • Not all at once, we would overwhelm the Gaps ability to do its job.

      • This reply was deleted.
      • This reply was deleted.
        • Mate, all we need to do is pick 64 even money winners, go all up, and we're quintillionaires - where the hell is my form guide?  :)

        • Go ploppa 4120437740?profile=RESIZE_710x

        • Poppa, your argument is a red herring. If a contagion has an expondential growth rate and continues unconstraind, it will take over the population. That is the only issue. Just because the population itself might be finite and constrained is the red herring. Your argument is like saying if you have a bucket of clear water, and everyone prefers clear to muddy water, and the bucket is finite in volume,and you introduce some mud into the bucket, at an exponential rate, the issue is not the end-point of muddy water but the start-point of the finite volume of the bucket. 

          Just playing the ball not the man!

        • gotchya, lol

      • Hahaha

      • LOL Maggie, gold right there.

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Absolutely correct "
18 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"We'd better all stop talking about o'neill because we might upset the fairies who support himself and Sarantinos, but cannot provide evidence to support their narrative other than belittling those who know that its the number 1 issue with the club…"
20 minutes ago
EA replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"So after one game? And he was playing like a fullback "
22 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"If MoN gets sacked he would have limited options for employment...like, he couldn'f even do parcel-delivery with his inability to get anyone to sign for anything ever
 "
24 minutes ago
Slippery. replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?

 I think the Burton/ Moses combination is perfect. The issue is the price tag attached to Burton and having upto 2.5 million invested in the halves,  especially when the Eels are currently struggling with quality in several areas. Signing Burton…"
43 minutes ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Mate the people who are always pushing the highest bid of 1.3 mil, are the excuse makers for o'neill and the recruitment team. Nobody actually knows what the final figures were, but the extra year I think was the deciding factor "
46 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"When to debut Lorenzo seems to an easy call. All Ryles has to do is ask himself if he is doing it to bring the lad on or whether we are looking to him to help us win. We have annointed him a chosen one, so it would behoove us to not butcher his…"
47 minutes ago
Nightmare Off-Season replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"All reports are 5m over 5 seasons, if you can show the 1.2m reported from Anasta that would be interesting to read?
 
Google:
'No, Braith Anasta did not state that Keaon Koloamatangi signed for $1.2 million per season.
On NRL 360 and across major…"
50 minutes ago
Nightmare Off-Season replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?

We don’t know, unfortunately, but Dylan is on record making a few claims and it obviously wasn't the 1.3m constantly pushed here, and less than we’ve then spent on Pezet anyway.
The Eels identified DB as a 10 year player ourselves remember (which…"
1 hour ago
Hell On Eels replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Anasta was the only one who reported it the most accurately $1.2m pa. You can believe the $1m pa media reports, but you'd by out by a $1m overall plus TPAs.
Cap, would you pay $6m for him for 5 years ON the cap?
Souths passed. So did we. A stuff up…"
1 hour ago
The Captain replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Where's the $1.2m figure come from HOE?
ABC, Fox, SMH, Nine, Sporting News all report $5m over 5 years.
I know it's all hearsay anyway, but all the reporting I saw indicated the sticking point was the extra year only. I didn't see anyone reporting…"
1 hour ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Why does everything have to come down to a counter offer from the eels ffs.  There were rumours that the brown management couldn't believe the clauses that the eels management had agreed to.   
Take Sam Tuivaiti for example,  we offer him a 500 k…"
1 hour ago
Bear replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Totally agree, as Burt Kenny said  if you have potential and a cup of coffee your worth the value of the coffee, don't talk about juniors as the 2nd coming, they've obviously all got potential,  otherwise they wouldn't be there. If they are super…"
1 hour ago
Poupou Escobar replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Assuming Drown is getting paid $1.3M/year, that's a guaranteed $13M until he is 35 years old. How much would we have had to pay, and for how long, to make the Knights deal anything other than a no brainer? A five year deal would have him off…"
1 hour ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Exactly correct mate.  It all comes down to poor management, but try not to upset the unicorns by sharing facts"
1 hour ago
Nightmare Off-Season replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"The Dragons reportedly paid 1m per season for Kalooamantangi, which apparently was the same as the Eels offer financially - but the Dragons offered 5 years, Eels 4.  
The Eels never needed to pay 1.3m to keep Dylan Brown, that's the price to take…"
1 hour ago
More…

 

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>