5 ms·
This is pretty cool, one thing that confused me was using "T" for thousands instead of "k", but I think that may just be a localization thing (I'm used to "T" s
by henriquez 7y ago
This is pretty cool, one thing that confused me was using "T" for thousands instead of "k", but I think that may just be a localization thing (I'm used to "T" signifying trillions).
I am curious how something like population distribution over geography would affect a model like this (obviously it would become a lot more complicated).
My understanding is, at least in the U.S., the goal of public health officials is to stagger the COVID-19 infection rate to draw it out over a long period of time. Given that there is no vaccine, the best they can do is prevent it from spreading as quickly. If 100% of 330 million Americans suddenly got sick, if ~16% of them need hospitalization, we'd run out of beds, and if ~6% needed critical respiratory care, it would be a catastrophe (one of my family members who is a medical doctor estimates there are roughly 70,000 ventilators in the country). So by slowing it down they can stagger the rate at which our medical facilities are impacted.
- michael-ax 7y agowould? what? if 5% needed ventilators, 70k of them would provide for 1.4 million infected. e.g. you could handle 0.4% of the population being sick concurrently. as is, it is a catastrophe.
- ThePhysicist 7y agoThanks, I fixed that! There are models that take the geographic distribution into account, e.g. this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF3FhOPwv2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF3FhOPwv2w That said for a small countrly like Germany the spread seems to even out pretty quickly, two weeks ago we just had some cases localized in a small region and now almost every state reports many new cases daily.