basic-mathematics.com would seem to differ with your premise. Nothing in there mentions "small numbers don't mean shat".
If, what you're trying to say is that enough time hasn't elapsed to get a complete picture of what the final growth and decline curve of infection or death rates is, then say that.
It would seem that if a person wanted to they could solve the equation with the numbers of deaths to this point and they would very likely come up with an "x" that shows a rate of growth that is "exponential"...................by definition.
At the end of all this, no doubt the graph will look different, but for now perhaps it is exponential?? Just possibly???
Geno
Jumped inta the lead.
Yes, if you adjust the numbers enough, *any* growth can look exponential.
No adjustment necessary.
Number of known deaths over time. Simple graph, simple function, starting with small numbers.
Geno
I certainly can not figure out what numbers supposedly got adjusted.
This jackass, Fubarski, sure likes to label anyone who disagrees with him as a liberal.
But I have heard for years that a favorite tactic of the Commies is to repeat a lie until people start to believe it. This sure seems to be Fubarski's favorite tactic. And his second tactic: accuse others practicing the very techniques you habitually use.
Saul Alinsky's playbook, I have heard.
What is the hidden agenda here?
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.