3 ms·
2.5 indeed looks too low now. The median estimate of the size of the outbreak by Imai et al as of Jan 18 is 4,000; the new median estimate by Chinazzi et al as
by cs702 7y ago
2.5 indeed looks too low now.
The median estimate of the size of the outbreak by Imai et al as of Jan 18 is 4,000; the new median estimate by Chinazzi et al as of Jan 26 is 21,300 (assuming a catchment population of 20M, their middle case). If both median estimates happen to be spot-on, the size of the outbreak would have grown by a factor of 5.3 between those two dates.
- dzdt 7y agoI don't think you've got the right conclusion. The earlier estimate of the total cases was too low. Probably the newer estimate of total cases is ALSO biased too low. The reason for underestimate is they are assuming international surveillance found all exported cases. The paper describes this shortcoming: The estimates contained in this report have been constantly growing with respect to older versions compiled with the data available at previous dates. This is because the number of detected cases at International locations and a travel history from Wuhan city has nearly tripled in the last week. It is worth stressing that this is not implying that the epidemic is growing at the same rate. The estimated size of the outbreak refers to all cases occurred in the area since the beginning of the outbreak, and notification and detection delays may play an important role that, at the moment, do not allow the evaluation of the epidemic growth rate.
- cs702 7y agoThank you. Yes, you're right. It seems more likely that earlier estimates were low.