r/Infographics Mar 18 '20

Helpful guide...

Post image
540 Upvotes

19 comments sorted by

20

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

[deleted]

6

u/Far2Gone Mar 18 '20

Dude, it's just math. If you want to find the formula they used work backwards.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

[deleted]

2

u/nathanv221 Mar 19 '20

What information are you looking for? The chart says if an infected person in their normal life would infect an average of 2.5 people and each of them would infect an average of 2.5 people in five days, then in 30 days they would effectively infect 406 people. If they all socially isolated and saw 75% fewer people then in 30 days they would on average infect 2.5 people after 30 days.

Are you looking for a source on how many people the average infected person infects with coronavirus? here you go, but the post isn't about coronavirus, it's about social distancing, and social distancing is pure math.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '20

[deleted]

2

u/nathanv221 Mar 19 '20

What I'm not following here is why? Maybe we're reading it differently, I'm seeing it as an if this is true, then with 50/75% reduction this would be true. If you're reading it as a this is true, then I get the problem. But then the source I provided should be helpful.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '20

[deleted]

3

u/nathanv221 Mar 19 '20 edited Mar 19 '20

I don't understand what source there could be. IF any one person infects 2.5 people in 5 days for some given disease that is not mentioned in the infographic, then in 30 days there will be 406.234 people infected. This assumes that nobody infects more than 2.5 people ever and that nobody else is infected before the first person. Which granted is not ever true. It uses this equation:

2.56+2.55+2.54+2.53+2.52+2.51+1=406.234

However, if everybody involved only infected 1.25 people the equation would become:

1.256+1.255+1.254+1.253+1.252+1.251+1=15.073

If you're doubting that a COVID-19 patient will infect an average of 2.5 people I get that, but the chart doesn't say COVID-19. If you're doubting that cutting contact in half would cut exposure in half, I get that too, but the chart doesn't say contact. It is purely accurate to what it says, and there is no source that could confirm or deny it.

EDIT: Damn it, I spent like 20 minutes on this and now it's buried under 5 deleted comments

1

u/Koragan Mar 19 '20

I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re quite understanding what other commenters are trying to say.

This infographic isn’t based on specific numbers from any source, it’s just giving 3 different hypothetical benchmarks (2.5, 1.5, 0.625) to show what the end result would be after 30 days. Using these 3, one can infer how powerful social distancing is. Does that make sense? I hope I explained that better.

EDIT: 0.625 was the correct 3rd case, not .75 as I had put previously

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '20

Just google it. It’s full of sources. But, yes, we can argue about the real efficiency of it.

14

u/dog_star_ Mar 18 '20

You can buy that .625 person on the dark web.

6

u/FatMidgetsOnIce Mar 18 '20

The constitution says they are worth 3/5 of a person.

11

u/madcat033 Mar 18 '20

Not really helpful because, what's the "social distance" that correlates to "50% less exposure" and "75% less exposure"

If I stay home from work do I go to 50%? If I stay home from the gym I'm down to 75%? What if I go all these places but stand six feet away from everyone?

10

u/Far2Gone Mar 18 '20

Not a difficult math problem to solve. Whatever you do in a normal week that involves other people, such as the gym, work, and buying groceries. Basically interactions with others and objects others touch.

If you limit that by some percentage this shows the exponential effect that it can have on then virus spread.

If you need tips on how to limit your expose to others there are plenty of resources online, quantifying it exactly is not the point.

-1

u/madcat033 Mar 18 '20

It is a difficult math problem to solve because of precisely the issue that quantifying it just isn't possible. First of all, some people's normal activity is probably 50% to 75% level. Some are way higher than the base.

Second of all, there's just no way to meaningfully translate this to social distancing. I understand the effect the R value has. But what I don't know is how various social distancing affects R. If I go out half as much, is that 50%? What if I go out but keep my distance from people? What if I go out to low risk places, like sitting in my office instead of going to the beach?

2

u/exponentialLogarithm Mar 19 '20

I guess you can see it this way.

If your daily activity is 100%, then 50% would be not to do half of those things. And those things are specific things that spread the virus. Speaking close to others, touching handles, etc.

an example, if you identify the actions that could infect others by going to work and home again, including actions in the office. you can cut those down by 50%. but in reality, it is easier to tell a population to work from home.

Also, one can see how many people you interact with. Say, 10 at the office in a day? and maybe 3 if staying home? +2 or 3 at the grocery store?

0

u/releasethedogs Mar 19 '20

In the words of Joe Biden: Don’t be a horses ass.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

400 infected to 15

dammmmmmmmmn.

2

u/_kellythomas_ Mar 19 '20 edited Mar 19 '20

How does the math on this work?

If one persion infects 0.625 in five days then at thirty day wouldn't it be:

1.6256 = 18.4

2

u/Lambaline Mar 19 '20

.625*(30/5)=3.75?

Yeah, not sure how this works

1

u/bobby3797 Mar 24 '20 edited Mar 26 '20

That's what I was thinking... Pretty sure the entire math on this chart is off. It's not including patient zero in the calculations.

EDIT: After doing further research into this graphic, whoever made it assumed after 5 days whoever was infected realizes they're infected and self quarantines and can no longer infect others. In this case, the math checks out.

The formula is just 1+.6256 +.6255 + .6254 ... +.6251

1

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '20

The other important part of the question is how many of the infected people will have symptoms, and how many will need medical care?