How is the peak more than 14 days from "shelter at home"

4,285 Views | 30 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by 1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
Cheetah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I genuinely don't follow how shelter in place could be in place for 3-4 weeks before a peak. Shouldn't the peak happen within 14 days or so of everyone staying at home?

I'm not naive enough to think everyone is heeding the quarantine requirements but it seems that should be a minority.

I know this must be a stupid question but I just don't get it.
Tx-Ag2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Probably because a segment of the population disregards the recommendation and goes out anyway. If everyone took it seriously this would be over a lot sooner.

My brother overheard a ~60 year old overweight guy telling the cashier he was buying cigarettes from that he doesn't care if he gets it. He doesn't want to change his life.
Tom Cardy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The peak for new cases will be, but the lag in testing or people being sick enough to need hospitalization will be longer than that. Avg from exposure to sick is 5-7 days, but up to 14 apparently. If cases start dropping at 14 days and continue for a few days, I bet they consider lifting or altering it.
Sq 17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Successful social distancing pushes the peak out further and lowers the peak case load Lots of people are going to get the CV the better the social distancing the farther out the peak and smaller it will be
Johnny2Fan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seems the stay at home isn't working.
TexasAggie008
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of confirmed cases - do we know if 14 day lag time is the standard, or is that just how long it CAN be - but with most having a couple days lag time from exposure ?
Patentmike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Partly because we're looking at the entire US and not reasonable geographic units.

I am optimistic about the Texas data. Even as testing ramps up, we're not seeing a significant increase in daily positives. It's early, but the data could definitely be worse.
PatentMike, J.D.
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology


Gordo14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just because we've taken action doesn't mean the virus will not spread further.

As far as what you're talk about peak - are you talking cases? Hospitalizations? Deaths? Cases will start to roll off the exponential curve first, but they'll still be inclining for a while. The other two are lagging cases.
Sq 17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My understanding is the Cases will continue at an exponential rate for awhile social distancing if successful means the cases double in every week instead of every 3 days.
HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is a 2-14 day delay in symptoms showing, then a delay for people to get access to a test, then a 1-10 day delay to get results of said test.

That doesn't even account for the fact that testing will be coming more available over time so will be catching less severe cases increasingly. I don't think we will see a peak in new confirmed cases for a month or so.

As for peak in deaths, it's all the math above but could be up to 3 weeks to pass away from the onset of symptoms. Im not a scientist, but it seems like that's why the data lags the actions.
Cheetah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How do case counts grow exponentially when no one interacts with others for more than 14 days? Theoretically, wouldn't case counts drop tremendously?
Premium
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Surprised it hasn't already peaked if everyone is slammed in their homes and practicing social distancing.
Cheetah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This makes sense Hotard. However, on the flip side, if mean incubation period is ~5 days, most severe cases would require medical attention within the 14 day window, right?

The lag in testing makes sense as a part of the delay. It
Gordo14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cheetah01 said:

How do case counts grow exponentially when no one interacts with others for more than 14 days? Theoretically, wouldn't case counts drop tremendously?


Well #1 testing is lagging spread of the virus, so you're going to have jumps for a while. 2nd people are still interacting with other people. People are still growing to grocery stores. So until it drops R (number of people infected by a new infection drops below 1, it still grows exponentially).
Sq 17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interaction still happen just at a lower rate , people are getting take out, essential people are working( my trash was picked up twice this week ) , rumor is the Lowe's on Fitch is packed with springtime gardeners , I will go to heb once this week instead of three times. In Italy they are on lockdown. A true lockdown for 3 weeks would stop exponential growth. Almost nowhere in America is on lockdown.
Cheetah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gordo, I didn't follow that last part. Can you expand? First part made sense.
Cheetah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with this, but that also means grocery stores and take out at restaurants (which we're all being rightfully encouraged To support) are hot spots for transmission, no?
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assuming that overall infection rates remain low and the infected people have no shortage of "targets," we can expect the infection rate to become linear at 3x the average incubation time. If people adhere to the guidelines and the average incubation time is 5 days, the daily infection rate should level to a constant in about 15 days, i.e. linear rather than exponential. Perhaps deaths will be a better tracking number due to our lack of testing, but my point doesn't change. The smaller the constant is, which is also the slope if we plot total cases versus time, the faster it will get back to 100% case resolution.
longeryak
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cheetah01 said:

This makes sense Hotard. However, on the flip side, if mean incubation period is ~5 days, most severe cases would require medical attention within the 14 day window, right?

The lag in testing makes sense as a part of the delay.
Takes up to 11 days to make a carrier ill while the carrier can infect others before becoming ill. Once ill it takes weeks to recover or pass away. So, once you have new infections and weeks old infections at the same time peak is pushed out further than you would think. You could flatten the curve for new infections and still hit peak at a later point. Actually, the whole point of flattening the curve is to to push the peak out later at a much reduced peak
Keegan99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not quite. If R is above 1 but R itself is decreasing, then growth is not exponential.
Sq 17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i Will try again then must fix dinner
1.2^10 = 6.2 so if the rate of spread is that low it is still exponential but it is a manageable problem
1.5^10 = 58 at that rate of spread much worse thing like ERs and ICUs getting swamped can happen
2^10 = 1024 which is too horrible to consider even if mortality rate is low in 20 days 1 case could become 1,000,000 infected
Patentmike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cheetah01 said:

Gordo, I didn't follow that last part. Can you expand? First part made sense.
It's a pyramid effect. R0 is the average number of people that each currently infected person passes the virus to. I pass the virus to 2 people they each pass it to 2 people, etc. The R0 might be 1.01, but infection growth would still be exponential. At R0 numbers below one, the number of infections go down.

Think about this way, 2 to the fifth power is 32. 1.3 to the fifth power is 3.7. If I R0 is 1.3 instead of 2, the infection spreads 3.7 fold in a month instead of 32 fold.

Social distancing decreases the R0 and therefore slows the spread. As many have said, we're not eliminating infections, we are buying time AND increasing the hospital bed-days available to treat infected patients.
PatentMike, J.D.
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology


Cheetah01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks! Makes sense and I follow.

Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cheetah01 said:

How do case counts grow exponentially when no one interacts with others for more than 14 days? Theoretically, wouldn't case counts drop tremendously?


Because ******* #1 is an asymptomatic carrier and his kids play in the cul de sac with the kids of *******s #2, #3, and #4. ******* #3 gives it his parents because he doesn't think it's a big deal to still go visit. I mean, grandma wants to see the grandkids, so he doesn't want to hurt her feelings. Now ******* #4 isn't working from home because he's an "essential worker". So guess what, now Karen in Payroll's got Corona because she and ******* #4 have started having their **** sessions at the office, because a) it's practically empty, and b) they can't bone in the back of Karen's leased Lexus anymore since they're stuck at home on "quarantine" with their families.

So basically this sucks, but we might as well take it seriously cause otherwise we've just destroyed the economy for nothing.
Krautag81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We also have the problem of people from other infected areas coming in.
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Premium said:

Surprised it hasn't already peaked if everyone is slammed in their homes and practicing social distancing.


People in homes are not practicing safe spacing but probably practicing the game of 'hot dogs and hallways' or gardening or DYI et al.
Carnwellag2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tx-Ag2010 said:

Probably because a segment of the population disregards the recommendation and goes out anyway. If everyone took it seriously this would be over a lot sooner.


pretty much everyone goes out - or is in contact with someone who does. (think grocery store, at the very least)
Premium
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Carnwellag2 said:

Tx-Ag2010 said:

Probably because a segment of the population disregards the recommendation and goes out anyway. If everyone took it seriously this would be over a lot sooner.


pretty much everyone goes out - or is in contact with someone who does. (think grocery store, at the very least)


Yes, but social interaction and closeness is down, when you take into account more cognizant hygiene, at least 95%. This should more than flatten the curve, but make it come to a peak.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

rumor is the Lowe's on Fitch is packed with springtime gardeners ,

I can't confirm this location, but in the midwest, the home depots look just like they do every saturday.
bay fan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Johnny2Fan said:

Seems the stay at home isn't working.
Based on what? Do you think shelter in place works if only some places are doing it or not all taking seriously? I was sheltered in place in Bay Area while my daughter was out at the bars in Dallas. It took more then a week for them to catch up. She's been in for less then a week.....
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
because it takes 2 to 10 days to get test results
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Economy and million's of people's retirement is already destroyed so....
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.