(07-07-2020, 10:56 PM)Baggers date Wrote:Thank you, Spotted One. Makes you realise, in one respect, just what a diabolical powder keg the orange weasel has lit in the US with his breathtaking ignorance.Just an FYI Baggers.
What I've written above is a gross simplification, the real infection rate is usually a complex calculation with many terms that relate to latency, transmission, networking, longevity, etc., etc..
It's also important to note that these figures are for infections in the wild, the reported R[sub]0[/sub] doesn't apply to a hospital with everyone using PPE and having wards in isolation, so it's more relevant to how a infection might transmit at a crowded sporting event than in day to day living under restrictions. The restrictions change the R[sub]0[/sub], it is a feedback loop, which is something the cynics seem to conveniently forget.
The truth sits somewhere between a Fibonacci sequence(2,4,8,16,32,64,128.....) and a growth curve like e[sup]x[/sup] (2.7, 7.4, 20, 54, 148, 408, 1096,.......). The important point to remember is that the growth is exponential based on a complex network of connectivity and intervals, so it's a curve like acceleration under gravity, not a straight line.
You'll get over simplification in the media, things like people trying to tell you R[sub]0[/sub] means one person infects 2, the Fibonacci explanation, but that is not the real world scenario, they are just doing there best to make it understandable and manageable. But it's also a simple model scientists use to understand the behaviour, using numbers they can adjust to get a curve to fit the apparent circumstances. Thry will tell you from his IT background that network complexity doesn't grow by a Fibonacci sequence, modelling growth is far more complex.
When you hear the medical experts talking about the potential for 3000 cases a day, you know the infection rate is part of an exponential growth curve.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"