I use this blog as a soap box to preach (ahem... to talk :-) about subjects that interest me.

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Resistance is futile: Authors' Mistakes #33 - Lee Child Once more, I feel compelled to criticise an author who's actually one of my favourite.


On page 351 of my UK edition (ISBN 978-0-553-82556-5), Lee Child tells us of a fuel tank at a bottom of a 200 feet deep well (more than 60m).

Then, at the end of the story, he describes an operation in which the fuel is pumped up to the surface and then back into the well. The action is an integral part of the story, but it is physically impossible.

The problem is that to suck up a liquid from a tank, a pump dips a pipe into the tank and removes air from it, so that the atmospheric pressure on the rest of the liquid pushes it up into the pipe. That is, the liquid moves upward because of the pressure differential between the inside and the outside of the pipe. But the air pressure at sea level is equivalent to the pressure exercised by 10m of water. As a result, even if you were to remove all the air from the top of a pipe, you wouldn't succeed in pulling up water by more than about 10m

And yet, Lee claims that the pump drains a tank 60m below the surface...

The density of jet fuel is about 80% of that of water, but that only means that you can pump it up by about 13m, not 60m.

Now, how far up you can push a liquid only depends on the power of your pump and on the materials involved, but then, the pump must be at the bottom and pushing, not at the top and pulling.

You could also create pools every 10m of height, but that would require at least a handful of pumps to lift fuel by 60m.

However you turn it, Lee screwed up. How disappointing!

For your reference, here are the links to all past “Authors’ Mistakes” articles:

Lee Child: Never Go Back
Lee Child: Personal
Lee Child: Die Trying
Colin Forbes: Double Jeopardy
Akiva Goldsman: Lost in Space
Vince Flynn: Extreme Measures
Máire Messenger Davies & Nick Mosdell: Practical Research Methods for Media and Cultural Studies
Michael Crichton & Richard Preston: Micro
Lee Child: The Visitor
Graham Tattersall: Geekspeak
Graham Tattersall: Geekspeak (addendum)
Donna Leon: A Noble Radiance
007 Tomorrow Never Dies
Vince Flynn: American Assassin
Brian Green: The Fabric of the Cosmos
John Stack: Master of Rome
Dean Crawford: pocalypse
Daniel Silva: The Fallen Angel
Tom Clancy: Locked On
Peter David: After Earth
Douglas Preston: Impact
Brian Christian: The Most Human Human
Donna Leon: Fatal Remedies
Sidney Sheldon: Tell Me Your Dreams
David Baldacci: Zero Day
Sidney Sheldon: The Doomsday Conspiracy
CSI iami
Christopher L. Bennett: Make Hub, Not War
CSI Miami #2 (Robert Hornak)
Jack Greene & Alessandro Massignani
Peter James
P.Warren & M.Streeter
Nigel Cawthorne

Thursday, May 7, 2020

Authors' Mistakes #32 - Lee Child

Resistance is futile: Authors' Mistakes #32 - Lee Child I thought I would never write again about authors' mistakes. But I just finished reading a book that really annoyed me:


On page 118 of my Australian edition (ISBN 978-0-553-82554-1), Lee Child writes:
Would Susan Turner get a new Lawyer that afternoon? Answer: either yes or no. Fifty-fifty. Like heads or tails, like flipping a coin. Then: Would that new lawyer be a white male? Answer: either yes or no. Fifty-fifty. And then: Would first Major Sullivan or subsequently Captain Edmonds be in the buolding at the same time as Susan Turner's new lawyer? Assuming she got one? Answer: either yes or no. Fifty-fifty. And finally: Would all three lawyers have come in through the same gate as each other? Answer: yes or no. Fifty-fifty.
Four yes-no answers, each one of them a separate event all its own. Each one of them a perfect fifty-fifty chance in its own right. But four correct answers in a row were six-in-a-hundred improbability.

The only correct statement in these two paragraphs is that if you toss four times a coin you have a six-in-a-hundred probability of getting four heads or four tails (actually, 6.25%, but let's not be too fussy!)

All the rest is nonsense because the fact that there are two alternatives doesn't mean that they are equally probable. Child's misconception is that if you don't have enough information about two mutually-exclusive events you can assign to them equal probability.

It is a frequent misconception, but it is appalling that an author like Lee Child holds it and reinforces it in his millions of readers. When you are so famous, you have the responsibility of not stating bullshit.

And he restates the same misconception several times throughout the novel. For example, on page 465 he writes:

'It's always fifty-fifty, Pete. Like tossing a coin. Either I'm wrong, or I'm right, either you bring us back, or you don't, either Deputy Chiefs are what they say they are, or they're not. Always fifty-fifty. One thing or the other is always true.'

You can express most situations in terms of mutually exclusive alternatives, but that says nothing about the probability of either of them occurring. For example, when you go for a walk, either you are hit by a lightning or you are not. That certainly doesn't mean that the probability of being hit by a lightning is fifty-fifty!

According to Child, as Reacher says on page 480, 'Fifty-fifty, [...] like everything else in the world.'

As I said, it is appalling.

For your reference, here are the links to all past “Authors’ Mistakes” articles:
Lee Child: Personal
Lee Child: Die Trying
Colin Forbes: Double Jeopardy
Akiva Goldsman: Lost in Space
Vince Flynn: Extreme Measures
Máire Messenger Davies & Nick Mosdell: Practical Research Methods for Media and Cultural Studies
Michael Crichton & Richard Preston: Micro
Lee Child: The Visitor
Graham Tattersall: Geekspeak
Graham Tattersall: Geekspeak (addendum)
Donna Leon: A Noble Radiance
007 Tomorrow Never Dies
Vince Flynn: American Assassin
Brian Green: The Fabric of the Cosmos
John Stack: Master of Rome
Dean Crawford: pocalypse
Daniel Silva: The Fallen Angel
Tom Clancy: Locked On
Peter David: After Earth
Douglas Preston: Impact
Brian Christian: The Most Human Human
Donna Leon: Fatal Remedies
Sidney Sheldon: Tell Me Your Dreams
David Baldacci: Zero Day
Sidney Sheldon: The Doomsday Conspiracy
CSI iami
Christopher L. Bennett: Make Hub, Not War
CSI Miami #2 (Robert Hornak)
Jack Greene & Alessandro Massignani
Peter James
P.Warren & M.Streeter
Nigel Cawthorne

Thursday, April 9, 2020

COVID-19 infection distribution - the government is wrong

COVID-19 infection distribution - the government is wrong The Australian government and the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, have been stating for weeks that by depressing/flattening the infection curves we will cause the infection to last longer. That is, with a low peak in the curves, the pandemic will be resolved later than if we have a high peak. They based their opinion on models shown in graphs like this (from the report Impact of COVID-19 in Australia):



Indeed, the plot presented by the government seems to show that lower curves (i.e., with fewer ICU beds at their peak) are wider (i.e., they take longer times to go down to zero). But the plot is misleading. It is an exercise in Statistic gone wild, in which the government's "scientists" have played with the numbers while losing sight of what they mean.

How can fewer cases at any given time prolong the duration of the pandemic? It is pure nonsense that results from blindly accepting the results spewed out by a computer.

For one thing, there is no reason for the curves to be symmetrical. On the contrary, there are reasons for assuming that they will have a "long tail" due to overseas arrivals and probably other channels of re-infections. This is happening in China and South Korea (see below).

In fact, the two halves of the curves are most likely going to be different. See for example what has happened in China and Korea (to prepare my plots, I relied on the data provided by the World Health Organisation in their daily situation reports on COVID-19):



Both coutries experienced a rapid increase of daily new cases, followed by declines thanks to the mitigation actions. Note how neither country has managed to completely squash the number of daily new cases.

The government's plot shows estimates of ICU beds, while my plot shows daily new cases. But, as I explain later in this article, the two numbers are linked to each other. If I had plotted the data for ICU beds in China and Korea, the shape of the curves would have not been substantially different (as long as the ICUs managed to remain below saturation, as that would have cut the top of the curves).

That in the government's plot flatter curves are shown farther away from day zero is meaningless and confusing. What has the shape of the curve to do with when a pandemic begins affecting a country? Please!

As another example of curve asymmetry, let's compare Australia and Korea:



In this plot, the curves show the numbers of new daily cases averaged over one week (three days on either side). To facilitate the comparison of the two curves, I have also removed from the plots the initial days of the infection, in which the numbers of daily new cases in each country were very few (four or less) and sporadic.

I chose Australia and Korea because they reached comparable numbers of maximum daily new cases and both are clearly past the peaks of their respective distributions. Notice how the number of new cases grew in Korea more rapidly than in Australia while the descending sides of the curves are very similar. In any case, contrary to what our government tells us, the curves are far from being symmetrical.

That the government's plot is an exercise in statistics becomes even clearer when you look at the Wikipedia page on the normal distribution:



This must be where the government's overpaid modellers have got their ideas...

Now let's explain how the number of ICU beds and the daily number of new cases are linked.

If we get 1,000 new cases today and 1,000 new cases tomorrow, each group will require a similar number of ICU beds after a week or so.
The current status (2020-04-09 13:45) provided by the Department of Health tells us that in Australia we have a total of 6,013 cases and 87 patients currently in intensive care.

That said, you cannot simply calculate that 1,000 new cases will require more or less 87/6013 = 15 additional ICU beds a week later because to determine the total number of ICU beds needed, we need to take into account for how long each patient remains in ICU: the longer the patient stays, the more beds we need. Furthermore, sadly, we also have to take into account the number of deaths (currently 50 in Australia). Careful modelling is required to prepare reliable projections.

A critical issue in modelling the pandemic is how to estimate future numbers of new infections, especially when considering that some infected people have no symptoms an can therefore spread the virus undetected. The only way to get hold of such community-based transmission is to test lots of people. This is why the WHO's Director has been promoting "testing, testing, testing". Fortunately, our government got it right, relentlessly testing as many people as possible, the only limitation being the number of testers and the availability of test kits. A better knowledge of community-transmitted cases will result in better models.

Tuesday, March 24, 2020

COVID-19 - flattening the curve

Resistance is futile: COVID-19 - flattening the curve My last post was in September 2015. Somehow, after that, I lost interest in writing my sermons and stepped off the soap box. But the way in which politicians and journalists speak abut "flattening the curve" when talking about COVID-19 as if it were obvious to the vast majority of the public prompted me to attempt an explanation of what "flattening the curve" actually means. It still involves logarithmic plots, which many will find confusing, but it might help.

I want to post this article as quickly as possible. My apologies for the typos I will inevitably make.

Here are the curves the politicians are talking about, drawn for China, Korea, Iran, and Japan:

The numbers at the bottom indicate the days since the World Health Organisation has started reporting data on COVID-19 on 2020-01-21. You can see them on the WHO web site. For this plot, I have used all the reports till #63, published today (2020-03-23).

The numbers on the left tell you how many new cases were reported for each day. In fact, this is not entirely true, because the plot shows weekly averages to avoid wild fluctuations. That is, every point of each curve is averaged with the preceding and following three points. Therefore, these plots are useful to see the trends, rather than individual values.

The numbers of daily new cases of all countries represented in this plot reached a maximum before starting to decline. It means that the drastic measures taken in those countries managed to bring the contagoin under control. Notice that Korea and Japan have an initial "bump" followed by a systematic increase. This could be due to the transition from imported cases to community-transmitted cases, but it is only my speculation and I could be completely wrong.

More importantly, note that China and Korea are experiencing a resurgence of new cases in the past week or so. This could be due to the relaxing of the containment measures or, as China has stated in several occasions, to infected residents returning home from abroad, thereby carrying the virus back home. In any case, unless great attention is paid, the contagion could flare up again, like a non-completely extinguished bush fire.

While China, Korea, and Iran experienced a rapid increase in new cases, Japan quickly managed to bring the increases under control, as shown by the fact that the curve is "flatter" (first hint at what "flattening the curve" means, although it will become clear at the end).

Let's have a look at Germany, Italy, and Spain:

The curves are bent but haven't reached a maximum. This means that the measures adopted by these countries has started to bite, but the situation will become worse before beginning to improve. In other words, the bending of the curves indicate that the number of daily new cases is still increasing, although less rapidly. The days in which the number of new infections will begin to decrease is still to come.

Finally, let's have a look at Australia and the United States:

Do you see how the lines are straight up? These countries are still in the "exploding" phase of the contagion. In semi-logarithmic plots, straight lines mean exponential growth. It means that the number of new cases is growing exponentially. The situation in the USA is worse than in Australia because in Australia the daily increase is around a couple of hundred, while in the USA they get several few thousand new cases per day.

The last plot I want to show you is of the total number of cases, rather than of the number of daily new cases:

First of all, notice that the numbers on the left now reach 100,000. For those with knowledge of Mathematics, I will say that these curves are the integral of those shown in the first three plots. That is, these curves show the areas under the previous curves. Perhaps not surprisingly, the bottom curve of this fourth plot is that of Japan, which is the country with the lowest number of daily new infections.

As I already said, a straight line represents an exponential growth. The thin grey lines are there for reference, and tell you in practical terms how to read the country-specific curves. The slope of the lowest (dashed) thin line represents a doubling of the total number of cases every 10 days. As you can see, Japan managed to contain their total number of cases around that figure, as the curve for Japan is almost parallel to the 10-day-doubling line.

The other thin lines, closer and closer to the vertical, represent doublings of total number of cases every 5, 4, 3, and 2 days. As you can see, the curves of most of the countries shown are clustered around the 2-day-doubling line, the only exception being Australia, which is close to the 3-day-doubling line.

These are the curves that the governments try to flatten with their measures (some might refer to the curves shown in the first three plots, but if you flatten one, you also flatten the other). Here, like in the first three plots, you can clearly see that China and Korea have managed to flatten their curves, while the USA and Australia are still shooting straight up.

To give you a better idea of what a 2-day-doubling means, consider that each 100 infected people become 1131 after one week, 12,800 after two weeks, and 144,815 cases after three weeks. Staggering numbers. With 10-day-doublings, the initial 100 cases become 162 after one week, 264 after two weeks, and 429 after three weeks. This is the difference betweem Italy, overwhelmed by the sick, and Japan.