<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 30.03.2020, at 20:37, Tim Wescott <<a href="mailto:tim@wescottdesign.com" class="">tim@wescottdesign.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">Someone was tagging "R" as "removed", which works if it's the aggregate<br class="">of "live and no longer contagious" and "dead".<br class=""><br class="">Actually assessing the proportion of R depends on the local health<br class="">system, and, to some extent, the size of the peak -- the main reason<br class="">we're quarantining is to bring the peak down by broadening it. </blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The usual display of the INFECTED population as a series of normal distributions is not quite right, but a good enough approximation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It is correct, that the reduction of the transmission coefficient delays the peak and makes it smaller......</div><div class="">Heinz</div><div class=""><img apple-inline="yes" id="A13C3625-6030-4863-A443-1731D4A0791B" src="cid:4994AE78-5232-4C93-9C9E-A42D82AAADA0@upc.at" class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> The<br class="">percentage of 'R' that's dead people is going to depend on how burdened<br class="">the health care system is in any locality.<br class=""><br class="">In cold-blooded mathematical terms it's just another dimension to the<br class="">modeling, but it's on the output side of the differential equation; it<br class="">doesn't have a great impact (as modeled) on the actual dynamics of<br class="">those three variables.<br class=""><br class="">On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 17:12 +0300, Vesela Pasheva wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Hello colleagues,<br class=""><br class="">I would like to know whether the variable D of dead persons could be <br class="">included in the model considered. Up till now the model considers<br class="">the <br class="">variables S - susceptible, I - infected and R - recovered. Where do<br class="">the <br class="">Dead persons D go.<br class="">Of course i such case the system will be of four differential<br class="">equations.<br class=""><br class="">Best regards<br class=""><br class="">Vesela<br class=""><br class="">На 30-03-2020 15:38, Heinz Nabielek написа:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 30.03.2020, at 08:13, Stéphane Mottelet<br class=""><<a href="mailto:stephane.mottelet@utc.fr" class="">stephane.mottelet@utc.fr</a>> wrote:<br class="">Hello Heinz,<br class=""><br class="">Here is an interactive version (made for my children last<br class="">week...) :<br class=""><br class="">// Confinement COVID-19 !<br class="">// Stephane MOTTELET, UTC<br class="">// Tue Mar 24 08:55:03 CET 2020....<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Great many thanks:<br class=""><br class="">o The SIR model is great and can be readily understood.<br class=""><br class="">o Scilab is great: one line of code where big EXCEL sheet produced<br class="">a<br class="">mess.<br class=""><br class="">o Scilab friends and colleagues are great: instantaneous and real<br class="">help.<br class=""><br class="">If the modelling is anywhere near to right, it will soon be over in<br class="">Austria (cyan circles are recorded infections). But this is likely<br class="">over-optimistic.....<br class="">Heinz<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br class=""></body></html>