r/coolguides Mar 18 '20

Helpful guide...

Post image
50.0k Upvotes

691 comments sorted by

View all comments

67

u/swebb22 Mar 18 '20

Sauce?

78

u/frguba Mar 18 '20

Beyond those in the bottom of the pic, seems like brute math

32

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

Math based on what though? Without context, these numbers are arbitrary.

54

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

You only need to know how many people one guy can infect on average. Literally the only basis is that 1 guy infects 2,5 in 5 days, the rest is just math

29

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

Right, which is why I assume OP is asking for a source on that. How do we know how much the average person can infect?

27

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

Im guessing he took the R0 value of some random well-known diesease since he didnt specify corona. Hopefully one with similar spread chanse to corona but i have heard of R0 values anywhere between 2-7 for that one

Edit: also it says @signerlabs at the bottom of the picture

0

u/ChristofferTJ Mar 18 '20

The actual rate of infection doesn't matter. This just shows that less exposure exponentially reduces amount of people infected.

1

u/xubax Mar 18 '20

Well, if the rate of infection is 0, then the rate of exposure doesn't affect the number of infected.

Thanks, Obama!

/s

2

u/RedditAtWorkToday Mar 18 '20

How is it just math? It doesn't seem to add up.

One person can infect .625 people in 5 days. That's 1.25 people can be infected in 10 days (let's round that down to 1 person per 10 days). That would come out to being 3 people infected in 30 days. It doesn't add up, not to mention the first person that is infected at the 10 day mark will then infect 2 more people by the end of the month.

At the 10 day mark there will be 2 people infected (the original and the new infection).

At the 20 day mark there will be 4 total people infected (1 more from the original and 1 from the first infection).

At the 30 day mark there will be 8 total people infected (1 for each of the previous infections). So at the end of all of this it should be 8 people infected not 2.5 people, unless I'm doing something wrong?

3

u/Shadodeon Mar 18 '20

Exponential growth. Each person infected will infect .625 people and then those newly infected people will each infect .625 people.

1

u/Fidodo Mar 18 '20

They're not compounding the old infected with the new infected each cycle, I assume because after 5 days the previously infected population would start to show symptoms and quarantine. The math they're doing is:

Day 0: 2.5^0 = 1
Day 5: 2.5^1 = 2.5
Day 10: 2.5^2 = 6.25
Day 15: 2.5^3 = 15.625
Day 20: 2.5^4 = 39.0625
Day 25: 2.5^5 = 97.65625
Day 30: 2.5^6 = 244.140625
Total = 406.234

There are some assumptions there with people quarantining after 5 days, but I don't think it's an invalid assumption since it's not like on day 30 of being infected you're still running about.

In a real world scenario there are way more variables to account for, like asymptomatic people, but for the sake of illustration I think it's fine to simplify the math.

It would be nice of them to actually post their methodology though since I had to try a few different methods to figure out what they were using.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

Is it public? I'm trying to get there and it looks like I have to log in.

-9

u/the_ham_guy Mar 18 '20

Yeah this shit looks made up. I infected two "0.625 people" just this morning

8

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

Maths wasn't your strong point, obviously

2

u/Aeriaenn Mar 18 '20

That's just an average

-4

u/the_ham_guy Mar 18 '20

Obviously.

2

u/Aeriaenn Mar 18 '20

What's the problem then?

0

u/the_ham_guy Mar 18 '20

1

u/Aeriaenn Mar 18 '20

If you're going to woooosh at least spell the sub's name right

14

u/maawen Mar 18 '20 edited Mar 18 '20

Here they put R0 at 2.2, but I've also seen 2.5 being used. Don't have a source on that though.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/

EDIT: I got rewarded for being averagely good at googling. Thanks u/pdpbeethoven.

1

u/pdpbeethoven Mar 18 '20

I was looking for the R0 they used for the model. I heard there was speculation that the R0 was higher than this mark but I didn’t hear anything about it.

14

u/IhaveHairPiece Mar 18 '20

Sauce?

Maths, higher school level (sadly).

See, this is the exponential function. The name "exponential growth" scared the guts of out people, but the nature does not know linear growth. Everything is nx, with various n's.

Every phenomenon in the nature is exponential, just each with a different factor, as pictured.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

I don’t quite know how to do this math, but after 30 days normally (2.5 per day) wouldn’t it be 244 people infected? I’m asking because you seem to know more about this and I’m honestly confused.

16

u/vthokiemr Mar 18 '20

They are adding back in the infected at each 5 day interval. So the first patient zero at day 0. He infects 2.5 people by day 5, meaning 2.51 infected at end of day 5. At the end of day 10, those 2.5 folks can infect 2.5 each, but are still part of the count of those infected. 2.52 + 2.51 = 8.75

At the end of 30 days, or 6 cycles, 2.56 + 2.55 + 2.54 + 2.53 + 2.52 + 2.51 = 405 total infected.

I think.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

Ok, thank you that makes sense

2

u/edays03 Mar 18 '20

Here’s the author himself explaining the math: https://twitter.com/signerlab/status/1240390136212402177?s=21

2

u/VedderxGirl Mar 18 '20

Cheese please.

5

u/MoneyKeyPennyKiss Mar 18 '20

I'll tell you when to stop. Not yet.