Two months ago India confirmed 11,300 cases per day.
This shows the rise of confirmed cases since then.
A straight line on a logarithmic axis tells you that you are looking at exponential growth with a constant growth rate.
Now India confirms more than 200,000 cases a day.
This is how the rate of positive tests changed in that same period.
A strongly rising positive rate tells us that the testing efforts are not keeping up with the size of the outbreak.
This thread is more personal than most of the things I share here, but I’m at my limit with Jason Hickel.
I want to explain why I dislike him so much and how we got here.
This is a personal story over several years so it’ll take a bit of time.
Jason Hickel is an anthropologist who wrote many articles and tweets about me, my motivations, and my work in the last couple of years.
I’m sure there are good points among them, where he is right and I’m wrong. But some of his big claims against my work are false.
One such big claim he put forward in an article in The Guardian. It was about my work on global poverty and he claimed that it “couldn’t be more wrong” to say that global poverty has declined.
A new study that asks: How has extreme poverty changed in the last 2 centuries?
The authors estimate poverty in many ways.
Their main innovation is to rely on 'a cost of basic needs approach' based on Bob Allen’s recent work.
👇 thread
The authors write that in 1820 roughly three-quarters of the world "could not afford a tiny space to live, food that would not induce malnutrition, and some minimum heating capacity.”
As you see in the chart above, the huge majority of the world was extremely poor in the past.
Since 1820 the share in extreme poverty across the globe declined to 10%, "the lowest level ever achieved", according to this study.
But of course more recently the share in extreme poverty has unfortunately increased.
The IPCC climate reports rely on scenarios of how the world will change in the coming decades.
This is the IPCC's description of the 'Sustainability Scenario'.
What does the IPCC assume for economic growth here?
Global GDP per capita increases to over $80,000 per person.
Better health and education, an 'emphasis on human well-being', and lower resource and energy intensity –– the future described in that scenario sounds like a future that I'd like to help achieve.
At the same time that scenario is the most optimistic about global CO2 emissions.
This scenario (SSP1) is also a future in which deforestation comes to an end – and instead we see substantial reforestation and much more space for the wildlife on our planet.