we will see, but it is just hard to fathom that with all these social distancing measures in place you still have 400K in the US and seemingly very few in Brazil and all these other places where for large swaths of the population social distancing is not an option.
It might be that the R0 is far more variable than assumed.
R0 is the measurement of what will happen WITHOUT social distancing.
In effect, researchers calculate R0 to determine if social distancing / lockdowns / etc. etc. would be worthwhile.
------
The virus's real reproductive rate is called "R" (which is obviously lower now, due to social distancing / masks / etc. etc.). R0 is the "if we did nothing" variable.
What's the correct way to say 'R0 with social distancing?'
That is to say, R0 in a hypothetical place that was always practicing social distancing?
Because as I understand it, R0 is used to calculate herd immunity, but a lot of people are curious about what the herd immunity numbers would look like if we continued to take measures such as 6ft/2m distancing and wearing masks (efficacy debated, I know) and face shields.
It might be that the R0 is far more variable than assumed.