I have seen it, but I choose to ignore because it is based on China numbers.

Not only that, but if the R0 would indeed be over 4.0, the world would be already fucked, today.


My model is built on an R0 value of 2.4-2.6. Granted, it is a mathematical model, and not a true epidemic model...because I do not have the data. CDC doesn't have it...and if they do have it, they don't make it public.


An epidemic model of R0 value over 4.0 might have lower numbers than a mathematical model built on an R0 of 2.2., because an epidemic model have the data from infection cycle, or hop.

I do not know if the cycle is 24 hrs, or 9 hrs...or 72 hrs. I have no idea, because such information is not available.

I chose my cycle to be 24 hrs, based on what a normal person, infected with the virus, does in 24 hrs : wakes up, goes to work and come back home.

Now, that person is asymptomatic at first, and he might or might not be contagious enough to spread the virus to other 2.4-2.6 people in 24 hrs.

He might get infected on a Friday, and he doesn't go to work on Saturday and Sunday. He might live alone. Or he have a big family...

All these variables are taken into consideration when making a model, and as I said, my model, the LONGER this pandemic goes unchecked, the closer will be to the real numbers, because all the variables start to balance toward a mathematical constant.


Think of this model like a fishing contest, where someone tries to determine the median number of fish caught in 24 hrs., while the number of fishermen involved in the contest rises every day.

The more fishermen are present, the better the determination of the median number of fish caught, and at some point, the mathematical value will be almost 100% correct.


The more people get infected and them more time passes, the variables start to equalize toward a mathematical number.