Closed Jennifer-Villers closed 4 years ago
@Jennifer-Villers I incorporated the parameter, I called it "neutral" but I think it is misleading this name (this was the confusion with @jordan-klein in Slack) because it actually could be used without the existence of a neutral zone, it's meaning is rather something like "testing" yes/no.
I think it is interesting to keep it as a separate measure from the neutral zone itself, so that we could also eventually use it to avoid contact between other groups of people. For the moemnt, my idea is to create one scenario in which there is a neutral zone in which nobody is tested and other in which they do, to observe the difference and convince people on the necessity of testing.
Since the technical request is solve I close the issue but feel free to discuss further its use.
@Jennifer-Villers I incorporated the parameter, I called it "neutral" but I think it is misleading this name (this was the confusion with @jordan-klein in Slack) because it actually could be used without the existence of a neutral zone, it's meaning is rather something like "testing" yes/no.
Should we call it "T-check" yes/no? (for temperature check) Testing may be confusing since some people may actually be tested by PCR.
Only susceptible, pre-symptomatic & asymptomatic people will be able to meet with family members living in a different zone than them (orange or green).
My idea was to introduce a new parameter {0,1} in front of beta_I/beta_H, equal to one for interactions between people of the same zone and equal to zero for interactions between people of different zones.
Thank you for checking this, Alberto!