4 ms·
TLDR: A research by Uni Toronto suggests that the coronavirus epidemic started one month earlier than is commonly reported (Nov 2019) and has yet to be brought
by sdiw 7y ago
TLDR: A research by Uni Toronto suggests that the coronavirus epidemic started one month earlier than is commonly reported (Nov 2019) and has yet to be brought under control.
David Fisman, one of the model’s creators said: “You can’t get up to that level of cases if the epidemic started in December. even if you pushed the reproduction really high. The plausible start date seems to be mid-November,”
Wikipedia lists[1] start date to be Dec 1, 2019 and with Fever, cough, shortness of breath etc as symptoms[2], I think it's difficult to predict even for doctors exact date of the outbreak.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavi...
[2] https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-resources https://thestrife.co/wuhan-coronavirus-resources
- killjoywashere 7y agoYeah, running a regression back to the Y intercept to get a 0 time is nice in retrospect, but you'll never find the index patient, the cell or origin, etc.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- janekm 7y agoPlaying with their model as linked gives a much better match with reported numbers with a shorter serial interval, 5 or 6 days instead of the 7 assumed by the default model settings. This is also a better match with the more recently reported case studies. I find it a little irresponsible to make such an extreme claim from such a limited modelling tool... Small changes to the assumptions can account for the discrepancy seen, and it's unrealistic to expect a basic model like this to accurately represent reality in such an unusual situation as in Wuhan.