![]() | This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
It's quite interesting to note that this graph looks very compatible with an exponential for the USA and Global totals. Mexico had huge lags in reporting, so it's harder to say, but it still looks like it would be compatible (or: a straight line from the beginning to the end is quite compatible with most of the data, except for the days where there was little or no update). "Other" total looks linear. Deaths still is a very small sample to get any conclusions.
This configuration is compatible with an epidemic in the USA and Mexico (maybe in Canada too?), with residual cases in other countries. It also makes the Mexican position that "everything is under control" hard to justify. Pmbarros ( talk) 18:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the file name states "Logarithmic" but the graph shows exponential scale? If you aren't aware of the difference: Log Logarithmic scale Exponential Exponential growth -- Pleitch ( talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Man alive, who the hell made this graph! It is quite clearly increasing at an exponential rate, but because some fool has logged it and not explicitly shown it, it looks like it is levelling off. Please please please put it back, it looks stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.233.87 ( talk) 19:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This graph is embarrassing. Why have a log scale? It completely deceives the reader into thinking the number of cases are "leveling off" when this is clearly not the case. The graph should be replaced with a linear interpretation of the number of swine flu cases. This will remove any confusion over the current log scale and give a much more useful interpretation of the data!
I suggest including both a linear graph (for the ordinary reader) and semi-logarithmic graph (for those more interested in the rate of growth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.43.22 ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested to know the choice of the countries shown on this graph. Now the disease has spread to everywhere, so would it be wise to remove the countries, or add new countries to this graph? - Xavier Fung ( talk) 06:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been updating this from WHO information for a while now but will no longer be able to do so. If it continues to be used then I encourage others to update it. The source Excel file is here (2007 version) and it is fairly self explanatory. |→ Spaully τ 18:18, 5 July 2009 ( GMT)
![]() | This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
It's quite interesting to note that this graph looks very compatible with an exponential for the USA and Global totals. Mexico had huge lags in reporting, so it's harder to say, but it still looks like it would be compatible (or: a straight line from the beginning to the end is quite compatible with most of the data, except for the days where there was little or no update). "Other" total looks linear. Deaths still is a very small sample to get any conclusions.
This configuration is compatible with an epidemic in the USA and Mexico (maybe in Canada too?), with residual cases in other countries. It also makes the Mexican position that "everything is under control" hard to justify. Pmbarros ( talk) 18:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the file name states "Logarithmic" but the graph shows exponential scale? If you aren't aware of the difference: Log Logarithmic scale Exponential Exponential growth -- Pleitch ( talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Man alive, who the hell made this graph! It is quite clearly increasing at an exponential rate, but because some fool has logged it and not explicitly shown it, it looks like it is levelling off. Please please please put it back, it looks stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.233.87 ( talk) 19:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This graph is embarrassing. Why have a log scale? It completely deceives the reader into thinking the number of cases are "leveling off" when this is clearly not the case. The graph should be replaced with a linear interpretation of the number of swine flu cases. This will remove any confusion over the current log scale and give a much more useful interpretation of the data!
I suggest including both a linear graph (for the ordinary reader) and semi-logarithmic graph (for those more interested in the rate of growth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.43.22 ( talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested to know the choice of the countries shown on this graph. Now the disease has spread to everywhere, so would it be wise to remove the countries, or add new countries to this graph? - Xavier Fung ( talk) 06:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been updating this from WHO information for a while now but will no longer be able to do so. If it continues to be used then I encourage others to update it. The source Excel file is here (2007 version) and it is fairly self explanatory. |→ Spaully τ 18:18, 5 July 2009 ( GMT)