News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A case for ending lockdown. Parent comment

Re:A case for ending lockdown by xscott on Thursday April 30, 2020 @02:15AM (#23027925)
> First, `1/1-R_0`. This is exactly what Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics

I have no expertise in this area, but Wikipedia does not say:

    1/(1 - R_0)
It's:

    1 - (1/R_0)
Which makes much more sense to me on a math footing. You should probably fix that in your article so it doesn't confuse other pedants like myself.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case for ending lockdown by ryankemper on Thursday April 30, 2020 @02:34AM (#23028037)
Doh! Thanks for catching that. That is a really glaring mistake on my part.

(The irony in me having said it was "exactly" what Wikipedia says is not lost on me :P)

https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/093ade629447...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case for ending lockdown by xscott on Thursday April 30, 2020 @02:55AM (#23028150)
No worries - it was clearly just a typo :-)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case for ending lockdown by ryankemper on Thursday April 30, 2020 @03:25AM (#23028328)
It is fun to imagine the negative herd immunity threshold implied by the erroneous form of the equation though :P

Say R0 is 2, 1/(1 - R0) means that we already hit herd immunity before SARS-CoV-2 even existed!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case for ending lockdown by xscott on Thursday April 30, 2020 @03:27AM (#23028337)
The frightening one for me was R0 == 1: Basically, we'd need a positive or negative infinite percentage of people to be infected depending on which direction you approach it from.
[ Parent | on HN ]