The Virus anybody else done the maths

Thread starter #1

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
5,284
Location
Yeovil
Watching the news today about worst case scenario and something on the Last Leg last week I thought I would do a little maths

Made easy for quickness, the government uses 1.5 people and I think they were talking every 2 days

If a person with the virus infects two people with the virus every day it only takes 16 days for there to be around there 1.5 million infected people

Very rough figures because there will some that isolate themselves around the 5th day and other factors.
 

JustOne

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
14,643
I have done the maths but (obviously) hope that I'm wrong and they find a cure, a prevention or at least something that is going to help people survive this BEFORE the maths comes true.
 

larmen

Head Pro
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
923
I don’t get the math. We were told that without isolation and infected person infects 2.5 people in 5 days.

Let’s take a normal working week of 5 days, I come in contact with 20-30+ co workers and I commute on a semi packed train. Just 2.5 of them get it from me?

I am all for isolation, but I don’t get the math as for me it is counterintuitive low.
 

JustOne

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
14,643
Let’s take a normal working week of 5 days, I come in contact with 20-30+ co workers and I commute on a semi packed train. Just 2.5 of them get it from me?
.
If you had it you would probably infect ALL OF THEM over 5 days.

Some other people won't infect many people at all as they don't see that many people in their normal working day, so it averages out that about 2.5 people infected per carrier.
 

JustOne

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
14,643
When this gets going (and it's started) in Africa, India, South America, Russia etc we are looking at potentially 100's of MILLIONS dead as it's hard to see how any underdeveloped country could possibly cope, let's face it we can't even manage food, water, basic medicine for half the world!
 

Imurg

Grand Slam Winner
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
26,266
Location
Aylesbury Bucks
Possibly because it's not being shown so much but people are forgetting that out of the 437k+ cases worldwide, something like 111k have recovered.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
14,321
Location
Espana
Yep, been doing the maths for a few weeks now. Over here they publish the figures on a daily basis, and by region. The region, Andalucia for us, also publishes it by district, Almeria for us.

Amongst all the figures in the table is those that recover and, unfortunately, those that don't. Using a little intelligence its clear to see that the more densely populated areas/cities have the higher rates of infection and, at present, the better recovery rates - but what about when the resources are swamped.

Conversely, worryingly, the mortality rates in the rural areas are higher than the recovery rates.
 

Twire

Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
3,557
Location
Exeter..ish - Devon
Yep, been doing the maths for a few weeks now. Over here they publish the figures on a daily basis, and by region. The region, Andalucia for us, also publishes it by district, Almeria for us.

Amongst all the figures in the table is those that recover and, unfortunately, those that don't. Using a little intelligence its clear to see that the more densely populated areas/cities have the higher rates of infection and, at present, the better recovery rates - but what about when the resources are swamped.

Conversely, worryingly, the mortality rates in the rural areas are higher than the recovery rates.

Not sure how your figures in Spain are correlated mate, but the infected figures for the UK I take with a pinch of salt. With so many being told to self isolate and not call 111 or GP/hospital unless symptomes become serious, I'm sure there are tens of thousands that have been infected and are now clear. So the mortality % can be way off.

This site is good for keeping up with world figures, but again how accurate are they?... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

PS, hope your feeling a bit better fella.
 

Doon frae Troon

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
15,743
Location
S W Scotland
Yep, been doing the maths for a few weeks now. Over here they publish the figures on a daily basis, and by region. The region, Andalucia for us, also publishes it by district, Almeria for us.

Amongst all the figures in the table is those that recover and, unfortunately, those that don't. Using a little intelligence its clear to see that the more densely populated areas/cities have the higher rates of infection and, at present, the better recovery rates - but what about when the resources are swamped.

Conversely, worryingly, the mortality rates in the rural areas are higher than the recovery rates.
You would think that is the case.
I live close to the D&G/South Ayrshire border.
D&G is very sparsely populated and have very low number of cases whilst Glasgow is high in population and high in cases.....….break it down per 100,000 people and surprisingly the rates are virtually the same.
Maybe something to do with the Stranraer ports......….throughout the UK cases are high near the major airports but the major airports are in highly populated areas.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
20,567
If one person with the coronavirus passes it onto three people, and those three people pass onto three more people for ten cycles, there will be 59,000 infections. From a single initial infected person.

Also I think the figures for three cycles from a single infected individual (@2.5 per individual) was something like 470. With the separation measures we are being asked to adopt that drops to 13 after three cycles (can't recall if I saw this on CH4 News or BBC News - but the impact of the separation measures were of this order of dramatic)
 

JustOne

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
14,643
I find it odd that the number 'pumpers' at the media seem so quick to jump on bad stats as if they are good stats, example....

Country has 100 cases and it jumps to 150 (increase of 50%) Boooooo!!
Country has 50,000 cases and it jumps to 60,000 (increase of 20%) time to celebrate as the % goes down!! :censored::censored::censored:

I mean lets not look at the difference between 50 people getting infected and 10,000,... its all crazy.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
14,321
Location
Espana
Not sure how your figures in Spain are correlated mate, but the infected figures for the UK I take with a pinch of salt. With so many being told to self isolate and not call 111 or GP/hospital unless symptomes become serious, I'm sure there are tens of thousands that have been infected and are now clear. So the mortality % can be way off.

This site is good for keeping up with world figures, but again how accurate are they?... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

PS, hope your feeling a bit better fella.
I agree, the true figure for infection is almost impossible to state with accuracy. As has been said, many people will get it and its not much worse than a bad cold. My point was the difference between recovery and mortality based on whether you live close enough to a major treatment centre or not. But that only applies until the major treatment centres are swamped.
 

pendodave

Tour Rookie
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,886
When this gets going (and it's started) in Africa, India, South America, Russia etc we are looking at potentially 100's of MILLIONS dead as it's hard to see how any underdeveloped country could possibly cope, let's face it we can't even manage food, water, basic medicine for half the world!
The population of most developing countries is night and day to (say) developed Asian and European countries. They are very heavily stacked with young people. Not too many people with 'underlying heath conditions' and extreme longevity make it for too long.
So extrapolating (say) northern Italy to Nigeria is a bit of a stretch.
It's true to say that millions may catch it, probably not the case that millions die.
 

JustOne

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
14,643
So extrapolating (say) northern Italy to Nigeria is a bit of a stretch.
It's true to say that millions may catch it, probably not the case that millions die.
I agree BUT also wonder the fortitude of a child that has little food or dirty water. I don't know the crossection of ages across Africa but assuming one parent dies the child is going to struggle. As per the thread we are just looking at the maths, lets hope this thing just blows away and we are all wrong (however unlikely that seems).
 

drdel

Tour Rookie
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
3,143
Its complex to calculate without using a dynamic simulation modelling technique as there many probability distribution workings across the changing infection process.

One of the biggest factors is the demographics of population density; e.g London 7,000+ per square mile, average UK 1,100 /sq mile.

One of the simple issues with the media 'rate of infection' is that the testing/recording capacity cap has effectively fixed the denominator of the percentage as a direct consequence more cases increases the apparent 'rate'!
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
20,567
Its complex to calculate without using a dynamic simulation modelling technique as there many probability distribution workings across the changing infection process.

One of the biggest factors is the demographics of population density; e.g London 7,000+ per square mile, average UK 1,100 /sq mile.

One of the simple issues with the media 'rate of infection' is that the testing/recording capacity cap has effectively fixed the denominator of the percentage as a direct consequence more cases increases the apparent 'rate'!
This is true - but independent of population density - the reduction in numbers infected after three cycles brought about by separation is staggering. As mentioned I think it was 470 / infection seed person down to 13 / infection seed person.
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
13,972
I heard a university egghead on the radio saying that according to their modeling that by locking down and creating a 15% fall in GDP we will kill more people through poverty reducing life expectancy than would die by the virus.
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
13,709
Location
Northumberland
I heard a university egghead on the radio saying that according to their modeling that by locking down and creating a 15% fall in GDP we will kill more people through poverty reducing life expectancy than would die by the virus.
He was a cheery soul :rolleyes:. Typical academic / theoretical response. Being poor does not mean you have to eat badly, not exercise, live an unhealthy lifestyle. There are links but it is not compulsory. Getting through the virus gives people a choice with what to do with their lives, dying from it clearly does not. (you may tell I dislike the throw away lines these people give)
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
13,972
He was a cheery soul :rolleyes:. Typical academic / theoretical response. Being poor does not mean you have to eat badly, not exercise, live an unhealthy lifestyle. There are links but it is not compulsory. Getting through the virus gives people a choice with what to do with their lives, dying from it clearly does not. (you may tell I dislike the throw away lines these people give)
Yes, he was a tad robotic in his delivery 🙄
 
Top