And if it can be reduced by 60%, we will see exponential decay instead of exponential growth. (assuming R=2.4 is the average number of people each victim infects, which is a number I've seen used a lot).

It seems plausible that social distancing can reduce human contact for the average person by 50%, and for people with some flu symptoms by 80%. All this is to agree, the growth rate is by far the biggest factor in getting an estimate of peak impact.

Does anyone have insight into how moderate/voluntary vs. strict social distancing impacts the rate of spread? Anecdotally, the streets in the SF Richmond District feel a lot emptier than usual when I go out for walks/runs (pretty much the only reason I'm going out anymore). Seems like it could be up to a 50% reduction.

That should already be helping, but I wonder if spreading might follow a power law pattern where "super-spreaders" account for a vastly disproportionate share of transmissions. If that's the case, it might require a strict lockdown to meaningfully reduce the exponent?