Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mike 03

(16,616 posts)
5. You'd probably have to assign a value to each encounter, and figure out how many encounters
Wed Mar 18, 2020, 02:02 PM
Mar 2020

with other people this hypothetical person is having, and then look at the region and see what the infection rate is. But there are all sorts of unknowns. But it seems to me like risk rises with the number of close encounters (within six feet) and I wouldn't even know how to factor in the airborne component. Is the person mostly inside or outside, riding trains or jogging alone on the beach.

It's an interesting question. I don't even think we know what the infection rates are in most states due to lack of testing. So it would be impossible to say "X people are infected for every Y people who aren't infected." Not every person, obviously, you encounter is infected, but that number is rising every single day. So it becomes more risky with time elapsed.

The people dying today might have been infected three weeks ago and felt great until five or seven days ago.

Reverse it....how many people are they infecting? Lars39 Mar 2020 #1
+1. yonder Mar 2020 #6
It would depend on how hard the virus has hit your area. LuckyCharms Mar 2020 #2
+1 Impossible to know because Trump suppressed testing. lagomorph777 Mar 2020 #10
+1 uponit7771 Mar 2020 #11
+10000 dewsgirl Mar 2020 #27
This. Impossible to know both individually and in terms of community spread without tests. crickets Mar 2020 #28
The answer would be complicated genxlib Mar 2020 #3
Exactly, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2020 #17
does a sniffle qualify as reason to self isolate? Demonaut Mar 2020 #4
Being perfectly healthy qualifies as a reason to self-isolate. lagomorph777 Mar 2020 #12
You'd probably have to assign a value to each encounter, and figure out how many encounters Mike 03 Mar 2020 #5
seems like if the people close by are not sneezing or coughing the risk is somewhat low nt msongs Mar 2020 #7
And lots of people still have to work. GulfCoast66 Mar 2020 #8
Yes - and to minimize the unavoidable risk from that, everybody else needs to do their part. lagomorph777 Mar 2020 #13
Excellent point. GulfCoast66 Mar 2020 #19
Welcome to the also forced on us, clueless clusterfuck of knowledge? Brainfodder Mar 2020 #9
Pissed off and pissed on, urine the Trump generation. lagomorph777 Mar 2020 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author jimfields33 Mar 2020 #14
WTAF? Are you kidding me? lagomorph777 Mar 2020 #16
Nope. I'm still damp in my bathing suit sitting out on my lanai. jimfields33 Mar 2020 #18
Please stop. You know the real numbers are at least 20x higher; Trump is suppressing them lagomorph777 Mar 2020 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author jimfields33 Mar 2020 #22
Actually I am in the home 24/7 except for buying food (and reduced trips for that) lagomorph777 Mar 2020 #31
?, I hope they boosted the chlorine Demonaut Mar 2020 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author jimfields33 Mar 2020 #23
lol, wrong forum Demonaut Mar 2020 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author jimfields33 Mar 2020 #25
I'm sure they meant your post should be in the Creative Speculation forum on DU Dennis Donovan Mar 2020 #32
On the 16th, Arkansas had 22 cases WhiteTara Mar 2020 #26
I ride the bus to work. tazkcmo Mar 2020 #29
Article with excellent graphic examples of how the virus spreads by proximity crickets Mar 2020 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If A Person Is Not Self-I...»Reply #5