E
EddieM
Time interval is 24 hours.
Well as I said I don't know, but some here have disagreed.
Time interval is 24 hours.
an individual, after getting infected, infects exactly {\displaystyle R_{0}}new individuals only after exactly a time {\displaystyle \tau }(the serial interval) has passed, then the number of infectious individuals over time grows as
{\displaystyle n_{E}(t)=n_{E}(0)\,R_{0}^{t/\tau }}
or
{\displaystyle \ln(n_{E}(t))=\ln(n_{E}(0))+\ln(R_{0})t/\tau .}
The underlying matching differential equation is
{\displaystyle {\frac {dn_{E}(t)}{dt}}=n_{E}(t){\frac {\ln(R_{0})}{\tau }}.}
or
{\displaystyle {\frac {d\ln(n_{E}(t))}{dt}}={\frac {\ln(R_{0})}{\tau }}.}
In this case,
{\displaystyle R_{0}=e^{K\tau }}or {\displaystyle K={\frac {\ln R_{0}}{\tau }}}.
For example, with {\displaystyle \tau =5~\mathrm {d} }and {\displaystyle K=0.183~\mathrm {d} ^{-1}}, we would find {\displaystyle R_{0}=2.5}.
If {\displaystyle R_{0}}is time dependent
{\displaystyle \ln(n_{E}(t))=\ln(n_{E}(0))+{\frac {1}{\tau }}\int \limits _{0}^{t}\ln(R_{0}(t))dt}
showing that it may be important to keep {\displaystyle \ln(R_{0})}below 0, time-averaged, to avoid exponential growth.
If you wish to be precise Eddie...spot of Calculas for you.
No it isn't. The time base for R is determined by the infection in question.Time interval is 24 hours.
No it isn't. The time base for R is determined by the infection in question.
No, it means that comparing the rate at which a disease spreads is more complex than just taking the R value and counting days.So that makes R values for different diseases incomparable?
Bolox..No it isn't. The time base for R is determined by the infection in question.
Really it should be bloody obvious it's not a daily R, as then one month and a day after the second person had it (with the relatively low R of 1.6), everyone in the UK would.
R is the number of people you infect whilst you have the disease. Not how many you infect each day.
Hogshít...If you have the disease and you go within 2metres of 2 people every day for 15mins or so....chances are every day you could infect another 2..and so on.....day 1...1 person infected 2 others....day 2 , 3 people total infect another 2 each......so on......that is why v small changes in R make huge difference....But some infections are worse than others..ie more infectious...Measles...R is 18..ie v v infectious...Differing R meanings too.R is the number of people you infect whilst you have the disease.
Aids is not transmitted very easily at all compared to Covid 19..Blood tranfusion or sex to contract aids.No, it means that comparing the rate at which a disease spreads is more complex than just taking the R value and counting days.
To take an example HIV/AIDS has an R0 of 2-5. Which is why as team America says, everyone had aids by July 1981.
You're wrong. In every way.Bolox..
R is also an indication of how is infectious the disease is..R is NOT Ever the number of people in total one would infect...That is rubbish
Go read a bookWhat is R?
The reproduction number is a way of rating a disease's ability to spread.
It's the number of people that one infected person will pass the virus on to, on average
What happened in the third year? You get kicked out?Well I'm confused now. I have maths abilities up to 2nd year university (long time ago)
What happened in the third year? You get kicked out?
Ive certainly heard a scientist saying that is a likely explanation.The explanation seems to be that the follow-up test is detecting dead virus fragments and that these people were not infectious second time round
Though right now they may as well cancel it for anyone under 65