4 ms·
That's assuming perfect compliance rates, right? I cannot estimate what the compliance rate for self-quarantine will be, but if we look at a few rates we get di
by AaronFriel 6y ago
That's assuming perfect compliance rates, right? I cannot estimate what the compliance rate for self-quarantine will be, but if we look at a few rates we get different numbers:
50% compliance? We already lost, too many people will ignore the app and we can't get to 2/3 even if 100% of the population installs.
compliance rate | necessary install rate
<67% failure (R_t stays >1)
67% 100%
80% 83%
90% 74%
95% 70%
100% 67%
If as another person replied the R0 is around 6, then:
compliance rate | necessary install rate
67% failure (R_t > 1)
80% failure (R_t > 1)
90% 93%
95% 88%
100% 83%
These are... not great numbers for trying to deviate from what Apple and Google will push as a built-in app. Even assuming >= 90% of the country has a smartphone, you need a huge fraction of the population to participate.
- icelancer 6y agoYou are assuming only a single input, which is this app. R_t can be - and is - reduced through a multitude of methods, including but not limited to, closing of large public gatherings, high compliance of mask-wearing, increased disinfecting protocols, etc.
- AaronFriel 6y agoThat's a really good point! If we can reduce R_t with widespread social distancing, wearing masks, washing hands etc. down to <= 2 we are in much better place and this app could seal the deal and we could just about eradicate the disease. And even if we "only" drive R_t to almost 1 we can at least buy a lot of time for our healthcare workers, which is valuable. Either way, I didn't mean to be that pessimistic. I think an ensemble approach is necessary. For now, general (easy to follow) shelter in place rules, followed by test and trace using these apps, and then targeted relaxation of the rules as we discover what we can reopen without causing a spike in R_t.