3 ms·
In pre-print on Feb 7, this paper initially estimated R0 to be somewhere between 4.7 and 6.6. People dismissed it as being not possible. It was never picked u
by snapetom 7y ago
In pre-print on Feb 7, this paper initially estimated R0 to be somewhere between 4.7 and 6.6. People dismissed it as being not possible. It was never picked up by the MSM.
Now we're seeing from the both the real world and other studies that it's pretty plausible.
- jkhdigital 7y agoYep, I read the preprint as soon as it was published and it scared me into buying masks back in mid-February.
- snapetom 7y agoBasic math, knowing population density, and then that paper was my "oh shit" moment. Got some half respirators and 300 rolls of toilet paper over the next week. The toilet paper wasn't to prepare for a post-apocalyptic world. It was because I knew that was the first thing other idiots would buy when news of this thing hit your average Joe :)
- DoofusOfDeath 7y agoPerhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it sounds like your bragging about being the first person to start hoarding.
- squidproquo 7y agoI ran some SEIRD epidemiological simulations (I'm not an expert nor in that field), but the death rate in the NY region was indicating a R0 between 4 and 6, not the 2.5 or so I've seen in a bunch of places. Obviously, population density is a factor in that number as well. I'm trying to aggregate forecasts for the US on this website if anyone is interested: https://www.unitarity.com/app/challenges/us-coronavirus-outbreak/events/apr-20 https://www.unitarity.com/app/challenges/us-coronavirus-outb...