[BostonCard]

This is amazing.  What is the most likely number for Rt with the social distancing approach being taken by most states?

I don't know; it almost certainly depends on how well people are following the social distancing. Intuitively, I would like to think it is less than 1, hopefully significantly so, but I really don't know.

In a few weeks, once we've had a chance to see how the experiment works, it will be possible to re-fit the model and recalculate the R(eff) with the social distancing measures in place.

BC

Wouldn't the data of some of the other countries gives us at least a lower bound, as our SiP order isn't as strict as their quarantine?
Some super spreaders would be grocery clerks, delivery personnel, ...
There are probably pockets of people not keeping their distance (homeless, illegal drug users, etc) that may still be spreading the disease.
And, of course, there will be spread within a household.

Last I looked this afternoon, there were no Santa Clara County numbers up for yesterday.  (I'm sure they're plenty busy).  I'm eagerly awaiting as I hope the
number of new cases should start dropping soon.

As I noted at the onset, all models are wrong, some models are useful.  One drawback of the SEIR model is that it assumes that all contacts are of equal probability.  That is, in SEIR you are just as likely to come into contact with a stranger across the country as with your spouse. We obviously know that's wrong, and in reality you have circles of decreasing contact (household contacts are very strong, followed by work/school contacts, followed by random contacts locally, followed by even broader contacts). 

SEIR would assume that the epidemic was occurring homogeneously across the US; in truth there are hotspots and some places where it is less common.  But it turns out that just modeling average contact works pretty well.

BC

[BostonCard]

This is amazing.  What is the most likely number for Rt with the social distancing approach being taken by most states?

I don't know; it almost certainly depends on how well people are following the social distancing. Intuitively, I would like to think it is less than 1, hopefully significantly so, but I really don't know.

In a few weeks, once we've had a chance to see how the experiment works, it will be possible to re-fit the model and recalculate the R(eff) with the social distancing measures in place.

BC

Wouldn't the data of some of the other countries gives us at least a lower bound, as our SiP order isn't as strict as their quarantine?
Some super spreaders would be grocery clerks, delivery personnel, ...
There are probably pockets of people not keeping their distance (homeless, illegal drug users, etc) that may still be spreading the disease.
And, of course, there will be spread within a household.

Last I looked this afternoon, there were no Santa Clara County numbers up for yesterday.  (I'm sure they're plenty busy).  I'm eagerly awaiting as I hope the
number of new cases should start dropping soon.

As I noted at the onset, all models are wrong, some models are useful.  One drawback of the SEIR model is that it assumes that all contacts are of equal probability.  That is, in SEIR you are just as likely to come into contact with a stranger across the country as with your spouse. We obviously know that's wrong, and in reality you have circles of decreasing contact (household contacts are very strong, followed by work/school contacts, followed by random contacts locally, followed by even broader contacts). 

SEIR would assume that the epidemic was occurring homogeneously across the US; in truth there are hotspots and some places where it is less common.  But it turns out that just modeling average contact works pretty well.

BC