If I’m going to have to go out it’s better for everyone if I do so early then later when there is a lot more that have it in my area. There’s less chance of me getting it this way which is less chance of me spreading it this way - aka lower r0. How can you argue anything else?
Let's do a toy model. This model is a toy just because it makes it easier to do the math
In this toy model, people get sick at the start of a week (depending on how risky they are), and spread at the end of the week (ditto).
There are 1000 people. They start off with 100 infected. In simulation 1 they do Risk 2 first, then Risk 0.5, then Risk 0.5
In simulation 2, they do Risk 0.5, Risk 2, Risk 0.5. Delaying risk.
New infections.
200 150 225 in sim 1.
50 300 225 in sim 2.
Sim 2 has a delayed spike. This matters. And the same number of cases at the end.
With exponential growth, early actions have magnified consequences.
But a*b*c is the same value as b*c*a. In the end, it doesn't matter, but we are hoping that we get the
spike down so our health care systems don't break. As much social distancing was close to too late, getting the initial spike down is key to not overloading ICU beds.
4 weeks after that the initial spike of ICU bed use will start falling, and infections
then could matter less than infections
now.
