re: COVID Integral Calculus

Cool.

quote:

---

What's simple about all of this, but which appears to be escaping many people is that "flattening the curve" doesn't mean fewer infections. The area under the curve remains the same. That's both science.....and math.

---

I don't believe this. If people are separated and the peak is flattened, then less people will transmit the disease. If less people transmit the disease then less total people will get it or die from it. If less people get it or die from it then the area under the curve is not the same. So I don't buy your premise.

Edit: Early predictions were over 2 million deaths or a range of 1 plus to 2 plus million. If we were only flattening curve to manage hospital capacity then 2 plus million would still die but over a longer time. Still don't buy the "flatten the curve" stuff. They are MD's and Virologists and not mathematicians. I agree there may be a few medical statisticians out there talking this stuff. They are loosely using the term. It is not a statistical/area under the curve term as they use it.

quote:

---

even my dumb friends understand total infected remains the same

---

There is a banner on this page

STAY AT HOME STOP THE SPREAD

there are billboards all over

WE WIN BY STAYING IN

I realize we all understand. But, if your dumb friends understand consider yourself lucky.
A sizeable portion of population thinks we can just stay in and virus goes away.

quote:

---

My mom had her mammogram rescheduled.

---

This is a concern for me.

The key to beating cancer is catching it early. There are 1.8 million cancer diagnoses per year (about 5,000 per day). The vast majority of those diagnoses have not been taking place over the last 2 months.

That is going to be a lot of unnecessary progression to later stage cancers.

quote:

---

For example, with a R0 between 2.5 to 2.6, roughly 60% of a population needs to be infected to reach the herd immunity level, about 200 million in the United States. But if 70 or 80 percent are infected because it’s overshot, then you’re looking at an additional 30 to 60 million infected.

---

I think a singular R0 is extremely simplified for a population as diverse in living arrangements habits of the USA. This may be why the IMHE models initially overshot on any area that isn't the Northeast.

IMO you probably end up with 4 distinct regions:

International Urban: In the US, this is NYC and to some extent places like Chicago (though not nearly the same as NYC). Highly dense population and "going about your day" brings you into contact with many, many people. Heavy reliance on public transportation. Typical of most cities worldwide, but actually rare in the USA.

American Urban: Dallas/LA/Houston etc.. large cities with large populations. But, living your average Wednesday does not actually put you in close contact with that many people if you don't want it to. Pockets of spread possible, especially in lower income areas where there is reliance on the public transportation system and more packed living arrangements. Proximity of entertainment will lead to more group spread possibilities especially among the younger population.

Suburban: A large chunk of the US population, not so much worldwide. Normal day brings you into contact with your coworkers and your family... and that's about it. Maybe a few close friends. Partakes in less group spread opportunities than the urban groups.

Rural: Pending on your job, fairly easy to trace contacts without even really trying.

Models that end up assuming we all are blindly moving and randomly interacting with each other are going to overshoot the number of cases and deaths considerably, especially if the plugged in R0 number is based on a demographic that's different than our own.

NYC it's going to spread like London (calculated R0 >3 last I saw). The others it'll be naturally lower, and maybe low enough that not a whole lot of restriction is required to keep the spread under control once you get out to rural area and some bedroom communities.

Less than a million cases in US so far. Going to be tough to get to 40 million.
Worldwide less than 3 million cases.
They’re a lot of mathematical models here that aren’t playing out as calculated. I think they chose the wrong formula.