The Coronavirus

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-25-2020, 07:48 AM)Mikebert Wrote: It's not the R0, its the R. R is the observed infection rate. R0 is the infection rate under natural conditions, typically at the beginning of an outbreak. That is, it is the base case, hence the subscript 0.

For Warren, R0 is a first order rate constant for infection kinetics.  R is the rate constant after you take into account various inhibitors like social distancing, mask-wearing and weather, plus mass-action effects like isolation & contact tracing or brute-force actions like shutdowns.

My point remains the same even with Warren using more numbers. If enough people are not taking isolation seriously, isolation will not have as much effect. Warren assumes isolation will have a factor of 10 effect, and is looking for a reason it is having a lesser effect. I assume that a great part of this lesser effect is Trump's narrative that this should not be taken seriously, that a robust economy is more important than saving lives. Thus, the difference between R0 and R is much smaller than the 10 it might presumably reach.

The key is that even with a lesser effect, we are driving R below below one. We have flattened the curve. That the reduction is smaller than 10 is not reason to go back to having R above one. It is regrettable. With a low enough infection rate, sufficient testing and repeated full isolation when the expected outbreaks occur, we could bring the economy back. As is, the federal lack of response makes this difficult.