Bottom line: if we limit our consideration to the time before anyone has noticed something unusual, where people aren't changing their behavior to avoid the disease, the vast majority of people are still susceptible, and spread is likely approximately exponential, then:
incidence = cumulative infections ln (2) doubling time Let's derive this! We'll call "cumulative infections" c(t), and "doubling time" Td. So here's cumulative infections at time t: c(t) = 2 t Td The math will be easier with natural exponents, so let's define k = ln (2) Td and switch our base: e kt Let's call "incidence" i(t), which will be the derivative of c(t): i(t) = d dt c(t) = d dt e kt = k e kt And so: i(t) c(t) = k e kt e kt = k = ln (2) Td Which means: i(t) = c(t) ln (2) Td What does this look like? Here's a chart of weekly incidence at the time when cumulative incidence reaches 1%: For example, if it's doubling weekly then when 1% of people have ever been infected 0.69% of people became infected in the last seven days, representing 69% of people who have ever been infected. If it's doubling every three weeks, then when 1% of people have ever been infected 0.23% of people became infected this week, 23% of cumulative infections. Is this really right, though? Let's check our work with a bit of very simple simulation: def simulate(doubling_period_weeks): cumulative_infection_threshold = 0.01 initial_weekly_incidence = 0.000000001 cumulative_infections = 0 current_weekly_incidence = 0 week = 0 while cumulative_infections < \ cumulative_infection_threshold: week += 1 current_weekly_incidence = \ initial_weekly_incidence * 2**( week/doubling_period_weeks) cumulative_infections += \ current_weekly_incidence return current_weekly_incidence for f in range(50, 500): doubling_period_weeks = f / 100 print(doubling_period_weeks, simulate(doubling_period_weeks)) This looks like: The simulated line is jagged, especially for short doubling periods, but that's not especially meaningful: it comes from running the calculation a week at a time and how some weeks will be just above or just below the (arbitrary) 1% goal.
Let's derive this! We'll call "cumulative infections" c(t), and "doubling time" Td. So here's cumulative infections at time t:
c(t) = 2 t Td
The math will be easier with natural exponents, so let's define k = ln (2) Td and switch our base:
e kt
Let's call "incidence" i(t), which will be the derivative of c(t):
i(t) = d dt c(t) = d dt e kt = k e kt
And so:
i(t) c(t) = k e kt e kt = k = ln (2) Td
Which means: i(t) = c(t) ln (2) Td
What does this look like? Here's a chart of weekly incidence at the time when cumulative incidence reaches 1%:
For example, if it's doubling weekly then when 1% of people have ever been infected 0.69% of people became infected in the last seven days, representing 69% of people who have ever been infected. If it's doubling every three weeks, then when 1% of people have ever been infected 0.23% of people became infected this week, 23% of cumulative infections.
Is this really right, though? Let's check our work with a bit of very simple simulation:
def simulate(doubling_period_weeks): cumulative_infection_threshold = 0.01 initial_weekly_incidence = 0.000000001 cumulative_infections = 0 current_weekly_incidence = 0 week = 0 while cumulative_infections < \ cumulative_infection_threshold: week += 1 current_weekly_incidence = \ initial_weekly_incidence * 2**( week/doubling_period_weeks) cumulative_infections += \ current_weekly_incidence return current_weekly_incidence for f in range(50, 500): doubling_period_weeks = f / 100 print(doubling_period_weeks, simulate(doubling_period_weeks))
This looks like:
The simulated line is jagged, especially for short doubling periods, but that's not especially meaningful: it comes from running the calculation a week at a time and how some weeks will be just above or just below the (arbitrary) 1% goal.
Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, mastodon
"People with vaginas"? Well, maybe
I posted a postmortem of a community I worked to help build, Clarendon, in Cambridge MA, over at Supernuclear.
In 2017, we looked at how web bloat affects users with slow connections. Even in the U.S., many users didn't have broadband speeds, making much of the web difficult to use. It's still the case that many users don't have broadband speeds, both …
more (via openring)
More Posts
Candy for Nets
To the Robobassinet and Progress
Thoughts on Ad Blocking
Bets, Bonds, and Kindergarteners
There's Lots More To Do