In your model you seem to keep the R value constant at the 1.5 ratio (S$1 cell).
I’ve seen calculations regarding where herd immunity kicking in based on adjusting R given the percentage of the population with immunity (already infected). I was not completely sure how to try making that adjustment so took the % infected in row 2 as the base constant from which I then subtract from the other values in that column.
I didn’t look at the full impact but calculate an Adjusted New. For the most part the timeline runs the same—the adjustment seems to more one period earlier than your calculations. For example, the adjusted new peak is on May 28 where as the peak in your calculations occurs on June 4.
The big difference though is in magnitude. The peak infections for the new variant in your calculations was 7,325,028. In my adjusted new variant cases the peak was 5,370,409. That seems to be a significant difference.
I’m wondering if the adjustment I’m apply for some reason is not valid.
In your model you seem to keep the R value constant at the 1.5 ratio (S$1 cell).
I’ve seen calculations regarding where herd immunity kicking in based on adjusting R given the percentage of the population with immunity (already infected). I was not completely sure how to try making that adjustment so took the % infected in row 2 as the base constant from which I then subtract from the other values in that column.
I didn’t look at the full impact but calculate an Adjusted New. For the most part the timeline runs the same—the adjustment seems to more one period earlier than your calculations. For example, the adjusted new peak is on May 28 where as the peak in your calculations occurs on June 4.
The big difference though is in magnitude. The peak infections for the new variant in your calculations was 7,325,028. In my adjusted new variant cases the peak was 5,370,409. That seems to be a significant difference.
I’m wondering if the adjustment I’m apply for some reason is not valid.