Implications of South Korean superspreader for R0 impact of U.S. anti-science, anti-lockdown people
Last edited Mon May 11, 2020, 04:01 PM - Edit history (5)
How bad do the science-deniers, the selfish ones, impact the whole? Let’s do a little math.
South Korean super-spreader
A 29-year old South Korean man went to 3 bars in one night in Seoul and is so far linked to 54 new infections. Eleven of those 54 cases were secondary, so what is known is that ONE man in ONE evening passed it to 54-11 = 43 cases.
But South Korean contact tracers have so far been able to contact only 637 out of 1,940 people present at the bars that evening, so actual infections could be significantly higher.
Ro number
We need an R0 number (average number of people to whom an infect person passes the virus) of less than 1.0, to make the epidemic decline and end.
If everyone who caught the virus spreads it to exactly one person, daily new cases would remain flat (R0 = 1).
->Impact of loving and caring behavior. If 30% of infected people are much more careful and manage to avoid giving it to ANYONE, not even a partner or family member that lives with them, then R0 would drop to 0.7, and the epidemic would decline rapidly.
->Impact of reckless or selfish behavior. If 30% of infected people ignore the experts — if they jumped in with the anti-lockdown propaganda, believed the “this is just like the flu” statements from the president, parrot the “ Democrats and the media made it up to tear down the president” messaging, the “Plandemic”/“billionaires did this to us” conspiracy theories, the “God will protect me in a crowded church” magical thinking — what is the impact?
To repeat: Just one person was able to spread it to 43 people in a couple of hours. They won’t all be “super-spreaders” but some will be. So as an example, if 29% spread it to 4 people and 1% spreads it to 43 people, then R0 becomes 29%x4 + 1%x43 + 70%x1 = 2.29. If transmission occurs on the 6th day on average, we are looking at new cases going up by a factor of 60 every month.
How Many Responsible People Offset One Irresponsible One?
It takes ALOT of people not transmitting to overcome ONE super-spreader. If 96 people are super-responsible loners and have ZERO transmissions but 4 are irresponsible outgoing super-spreaders, we still have a growing epidemic. (96x0 + 4x43=172 new infections)
The above numbers need to be adjusted if and when existing immunity becomes a significant factor, but we’re a long way from that. The point is, if someone in this world is intent on killing off the old or weak or unlucky, they don’t have to convince a lot of people to go stand at a crowded protest shouting, or convince alot of prosperity-gospel preachers to hold their Sunday services in defiance of state rules. A small number can easily undermine the efforts of a very large number of people who trust the experts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
