From Dr. Leung, “an infectious disease epidemiologist and dean of medicine at the University of Hong Kong.”:
The “effective” version of that number, the Rt — or the reproductive number at time “t” — is the virus’s actual transmission rate at a given moment. It varies according to the measures to control the epidemic — quarantine and isolation protocols, travel restrictions, school closures, physical distancing, the use of face masks — that have been put in place.
Also, the work is from a founder of Instagram, not a medical expert, although he might have deep expertise in data science, but likely self-taught. He provides his programming behind the results, Estimating COVID-19’s in Real-Time, and that is based on the following study/analysis:
I could be wrong, but I think that use of R(t) is different. In the usage of R in the one I cited it is the reproductive rate at t, while the one you cite is using R to symbolize a set of individuals, the resistant class at t.
Well, as someone who has not benefitted from a single hour of formal statistics instruction, I am easily confused! What little I know about statistics comes mostly from observing my CGM data and reports and gleaning what I can from that exercise.
I am always grateful when more learned sources take the time and explain underlying and fundamental concepts. It may bore the more knowledgable, but it sure helps those trying to hang on to the lower rungs of the knowledge ladder.
I think I had an issue reading ALL CAPS, clicked the link, and thought you were writing that it was something else rather than highlighting the confusion of a similar term…
Unfortunately the website with the paper I linked to was taken down - the link was to a cached version of page. The capitalized text was all that was available when I copied verbatim
Apologies - I only wanted to present another side of R(T) that was explained in different terms. I was in no way attempting to “Yell” or make it stand out as more important.
As this relates to going back to work, I was thinking that some states are at low risk and can afford to open cautiously, while other areas need to stay in restricted, so I visually compared per capita infection rates against shutdown status.
For some areas, it makes sense, like the northeast and the west coast to stay closed and have, but also it seems, so should the southeast stay restricted, as well as much of the midwest. There are areas of the midwest out to past the Rockies that can likely safely move about.
Two maps, cases per capita, and below that, closure status:
Keep in mind that there’s lots of stuff left out of the picture by simple incidence rates. You see this, right here? That’s people moving around freely. They were playing fast and loose with thier protocols to make money. Now, they are gonna loose a lot of money - so is the state and the feds and the hospitals. It impacts the entire nation’s supply chains. The CDC is physically on site there.
Most of those rural places have very few hospital and healthcare resources, older populations, and transport times that are measured in hours, not minuites. There are high rates of uninsured people. People are poor and wihout many professional choices.
They simply cannot manage prevelance like you have out east.
Souix falls’s current prediciment has nothing to do with initial disease prevelance and everything to do with behavior.
Its a highly vulnerable workforce that is easy to exploit. When you work at a turkey factory, your there because you truly have NO other options. That plant represents the lowest of the low in civic performance. You will not see labor markets operate according to any democratic ideals. Workers will do what they are told to do. I, personally, wouldn’t even buy anything produced by Smithfield anymore. They are married to putting everyone at risk for personal gain. ■■■■ 'em. They’re on my list, now.
I’m guessing that the issue is that Smithfield had to close plants because of infections among its employees and/or that the company was careless with its workers and subjected them to compromising work conditions.
@mohe0001 might be referring to stuff like this, that people are being pushed back to work, don’t have the power to say no, will suffer for it. The companies aren’t looking out for them.
Thanks for pointing this out, and you are right, but I was mostly interested in highlighting our different levels of risk. Also, I wanted to point out the seeming irrationality of some decisions to open for business.
We’re in Manhattan, and as such, I haven’t been on the street for a month, although I’ve been outside, since our condo has an enclosed 3 acre courtyard between the buildings. My spouse makes occasional excursions to the pharmacy, and we both make trips down to our mailroom. On the other hand, my sister in Stuart, Florida feels comfortable, living in a suburban community that is lightly populated, and on a beach. They still go to restaurants, and are planning a trip to Turks and Caicos in May. Although I think their risk is lower than ours, I do feel she is being a bit cavalier.
Honestly, I think we need easily available tests for infection, as well as for antibodies, plus more PPE, and verified treatments before we should consider opening up, particularly in NY. Still, some places are just safer than others, although, as mentioned, the lack of resources in those ‘safer’ areas makes the result of getting an infection potentially riskier.
I don’t think there is that much difference in risk. It only takes one infected person and one gathereing of people to go from 0 cases to lots of cases. You can see that in Souix Falls. But, it seems more of a North vs South issue, rather than an East Vs West issue, so the point (while taken) might be moot. Altanta is not sparcley populated.
The south could be decimatated by opening - economically and otherwise. But, it is what it is. People have to make their own decisions. Its really unfortunate. We will end up bailing out entire states. In some ways, there might be some benefits that come from a different North/South strategy, meaning there will be benefits in the North if the South goes through all the hardship of developing a raw herd immunity. But, once people dont have work, they will flow North, just like after Katrina. The South will soak up all the resources.
This is to your prior point about the more rural and less infected areas having fewer resources if something does happen, as said before, the infection rate could flip quite easily…
Although the virus took longer to move into the Midwest - it had to move across some distance that gave more warning. The Dakotas have less virus, fundamentally, not because there’s something about the Dakotas that have less risk. Its because people dont have as much contact with other people there. Its primarily behavioral.
A 30 min transport time is a LONG transport time. Its very difficult to do CPR for 30 min without help from an extenal device.
Also, Good luck trying to get a farmer in the Dakotas to even go to the hospital if they are dying. Good luck. Totally different than persuading someone in the cities to drive 5 min to the hospital. Culturally different.
At the time, I did not see much positive press about WA - there were a few mentions about the governor’s positive actions at the time - but I am seeing it now. I read a few pieces comparing WA’s effort led by public health experts against NY’s mishandled messaging from politicians. Cuomo has received praise, but the initial missteps are partially why it is so bad here. Even worse is our federal response, where I am seeing the experts are being threatened with firing, reassigned, or pushed back from the front. It all would have gone much better if expertise ruled the day, since we can’t get back to normal until people feel safe and there are adequate safeguards, tests, and treatments.
Agreed it could be a lot worse here in WA. However I am still concerned about our numbers. It seems we are stuck on a plateau averaging about 20 deaths/day since about three weeks ago. https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest
Thats about where we are at. Kinda expect that to move torwards 100 per day since people are going back to work (although, not everyone is returning at once), and it will really depend on people’s behavior.
The article shows the status of the closure versus the infections, highlighting the states that look to be in a safer spot that are reopening and the ones where it seems to be getting worse but they are still going forward.
Some of the states where infections are increasing, but they are reopening
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
There are others, with limited reopening plans, but this might help to gauge your own risk, or at least the risk at the state level…
in Real-Time, and that is based on the following study/analysis:
