Reply to post: Re: Bluetooth? Really?

Re: Bluetooth? Really?

Yeah but, no but... 2 buts...

But 1

'eliminate' only applies if the number of infections gets to zero. Theoretically it never will by -ve exponential growth (n x .65 x .65 x etc), which will 'tend to' zero but never reach it. Moving from theory to practicality there would be a point when there are 0 or 1 infections left, and an increasing probability (though never certainty) of hitting 0 eventually, after which it would stay there.

However, this depends upon absolute adherence to whatever results in .65 or .85. by *everyone*, *always*, without exception. Good luck with that.

But 2

R is a secondary measure (dependent variable), calculated from actual infections. It is not a primary measure (independent variable). Thus R never 'controls' or 'achieves' anything. It simply summarises the current state of transmission in a simple, single number. Whilst politicians can sometimes manage a single number without getting too confused, understanding the subtleties of the number and its origin and significance it too difficult and demanding for most of them (ditto most journalists, media, etc). Most dropped struggling with difficult abstract concepts when they dropped maths for classics in their teens.