Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
You impose a bunch of restrictions. Then you watch all the statistics. (Plus you watch other variables, like whether we have enough tests.) And then, based on the new data, you adjust.
|
The data and acting wisely is not nearly as complex as people are making it out to be.
The r0 is more or less the key to everything. That tells you how many other people each infected person is passing it on to.
If the r0 =1 that means the caseload will remain flat. Each infected person passes it on to 1 other person. One gets better (or dies) and a new one replaces them.
If the r0 is > 1 new cases will expand. 1 expands to 2 new ones, then 4 new ones etc..
If the r0 < 1 new cases will shrink. (the lower the better)
The r0 itself is a function of how contagious the disease is, but it's also a function of how densely populated the area is, what activities people are engaging in, are they wearing masks, are they social distancing etc..
At the start of the pandemic the r0 was WAY above 1. That's why it spread rapidly in NY.
Now in most states (including NY) it's below 1 because we locked down, started wearing masks, started social distancing, started washing hands, etc... That's why new cases and deaths per day are shrinking now.
So let's say we decide to open restaurants at 50% capacity.
The idea would then be to trace cases spreading in restaurants. If the r0 in restaurants goes to higher than 1, you have to reduce them to 25% capacity or close them back down to only delivery and pickup with masks. You can't allow restaurants to become super spreaders. If the r0 remains below 1, maybe you can try opening them up to 75% capacity.
The better you can test and trace things, the better you know what can remain open and what has to close in each city/state because you have to keep the r0 below 1 to reduce the spread. How extreme you want to be to get the ro lower is the debate, but it HAS TO BE lower than 1 or you start running into problems with healthcare and hospitals.
