We are in furious agreement. I also said it was exponential. What I objected to was that you calculated using two data points and claimed that this made the increase exponential. This is mathematically, scientifically and logically wrong.
So, you are agreeing that it is exponential, but just disagreeing with my method? Is that all we are disagreeing on?
Mathematically, yes you are correct. You can't prove an exponential relationship with just 2 points. But you can sure see something which hints at exponential.
Regardless, the 3rd point (which I respectfully suggest you are missing) is that this started before Christmas. There is no way you can have something start at zero 5 weeks ago, and increase by 25% in the last 34 hours without it being an exponential function.
That notwithstanding, I will update with the next provincial figures when they are made available - hopefully in the next few hours.
The incomplete figures thus far do not look promising.
Therefore, in the absence of (my emphasis) substantial public health interventions ... local establishment of epidemics might become inevitable. On the present trajectory, 2019-nCoV could be about to become a global epidemic in the absence of mitigation (my emphasis). Nevertheless, it might still be possible to secure containment of the spread of infection such that ... transmission does not lead to a large epidemic in locations outside Wuhan.
I agree with all that. There are a lot of "mights" in this
Do you see any substantial public health interventions?
The point is that we agree (I think) that it is currently exponential in China. Despite substantial interventions by China that would be very difficult to implement here. .
Where this ends? Who knows. Time will tell. Hopefully I am wrong. But for now, please lets be able to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Otherwise people simply disengage.