4 ms·

> The claims about shopping are...unsupported and go contrary to an enormous volume of evidence (namely the high R0). Honestly? An R0 of 2-3 is frankly not tha

by zamfi 7y ago

> The claims about shopping are...unsupported and go contrary to an enormous volume of evidence (namely the high R0). Honestly? An R0 of 2-3 is frankly not that high. If grocery shopping were a huge risk, and people spread the disease before being symptomatic, you’d expect a single sick individual to infect way more than just 2-3 people on average. Compare with measles’ 12-18 R0. That’s high.

endorphone 7y ago
The CDC is now estimating the R0 at 5.7, which is really high, and seems much more likely given the extremely rapid spread in areas like NYC. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article
- fxj 7y ago
  Abstract Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the causative agent of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease pandemic. Initial estimates of the early dynamics of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, suggested a doubling time of the number of infected persons of 6–7 days and a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. We collected extensive individual case reports across China and estimated key epidemiologic parameters, including the incubation period. We then designed 2 mathematical modeling approaches to infer the outbreak dynamics in Wuhan by using high-resolution domestic travel and infection data. Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)
  - xenonite 7y ago
    So, what is your verdict? This only confirms the OP’s claim that the R0 might be much higher than expected.
    - fxj 7y ago
      Just wanted to give the information. The facts speak for themselves.
      - xenonite 7y ago
        Ok, considering that the OP was heavily downvoted without anyone voicing concerns, I am frankly not so sure about that.
- zamfi 7y ago
  That is high, but that study assumes a serial interval of 6-9 days, which is on the far long end of estimates I’ve seen (~4 days). That basically explains the difference...

by zamfi 7y ago

endorphone 7y ago

The CDC is now estimating the R0 at 5.7, which is really high, and seems much more likely given the extremely rapid spread in areas like NYC. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

fxj 7y ago
Abstract Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the causative agent of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease pandemic. Initial estimates of the early dynamics of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, suggested a doubling time of the number of infected persons of 6–7 days and a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. We collected extensive individual case reports across China and estimated key epidemiologic parameters, including the incubation period. We then designed 2 mathematical modeling approaches to infer the outbreak dynamics in Wuhan by using high-resolution domestic travel and infection data. Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)
- xenonite 7y ago
  So, what is your verdict? This only confirms the OP’s claim that the R0 might be much higher than expected.
  - fxj 7y ago
    Just wanted to give the information. The facts speak for themselves.
    - xenonite 7y ago
      Ok, considering that the OP was heavily downvoted without anyone voicing concerns, I am frankly not so sure about that.
zamfi 7y ago
That is high, but that study assumes a serial interval of 6-9 days, which is on the far long end of estimates I’ve seen (~4 days). That basically explains the difference...