36 ms·

> In rare (1/10000) cases, incubation time can reach 14 days What's the cite for that number? I'd be very suspicious of anything claiming a 5-significant-figu

> In rare (1/10000) cases, incubation time can reach 14 days What's the cite for that number? I'd be very suspicious of anything claiming a 5-significant-figure result in a disease that has only (heh) 3M known cases. In fact there's significant supposition that the incubation time and asymptomatic contagious state can last much longer than originally guessed. This would go a long way to explaining the difficulty of detecting early outbreaks (basically nowhere in the world was able to contain before community spread was happening) and the anomalously low rate of new case decline post-peak. But there's no good science on this, and probably won't be in time for it to be useful.

Retric 7y ago
South Korea had a very rapid decline post peak. 1062 cases on 2/29 to 114 cases on 3/11. With an average of just under 10 cases per day for the last week. Also, the number I have seen was ~1% of cases where asymptotic for 14 days. https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/03/09/coronavirus-incubation-period/ https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/03/09/coronavirus-incubation-period...
- _-___________-_ 7y ago
  Do note that rapid decline in the day-to-day increase of case numbers is not necessarily indicative of rapid decline in transmission rate. Transmission rate could have declined gradually over the course of a week or more, and the rapid decline in day-to-day increase of case numbers could have just been detection catching up with existing infections.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Their daily testing was reasonably consistent over that time period. So, their is some wiggle room, but it’s at minimum a 80% drop over 2 weeks. Compared to the US where daily numbers are steady for weeks with the last two days having the greatest number of detected cases.
    - rstuart4133 7y ago
      I've given up on the USA numbers. There is no way an underlying exponential process is going to deliver you a near constant 30K new infections for nearly 4 straight weeks. Something else is driving those numbers, and it ain't the actual number of new infections. For me the obvious candidate is they hits some testing limit.
      - pashamur 7y ago
        You shouldn't think of it as one underlying exponential process though. It could be many overlapping and time-delayed S-curve type graphs which are additively causing a constant rate of infections. Although it's also most certainly true that we're vastly undercounting the cases in most (if not all) areas.
GuB-42 7y ago
> What's the cite for that number? I'd be very suspicious of anything claiming a 5-significant-figure result in a disease that has only (heh) 3M known cases. You are totally right about that. I misinterpreted the following paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150748 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150748 The actual number is more like 1/100. The 1/10000 number is the probability for someone who has a 1/100 chance of being infected to develop symptoms after 14 days. Uhm... too late to fix my original post, sorry.

Retric 7y ago

South Korea had a very rapid decline post peak. 1062 cases on 2/29 to 114 cases on 3/11. With an average of just under 10 cases per day for the last week. Also, the number I have seen was ~1% of cases where asymptotic for 14 days. https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/03/09/coronavirus-incubation-period/ https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/03/09/coronavirus-incubation-period...

_-___________-_ 7y ago
Do note that rapid decline in the day-to-day increase of case numbers is not necessarily indicative of rapid decline in transmission rate. Transmission rate could have declined gradually over the course of a week or more, and the rapid decline in day-to-day increase of case numbers could have just been detection catching up with existing infections.
- Retric 7y ago
  Their daily testing was reasonably consistent over that time period. So, their is some wiggle room, but it’s at minimum a 80% drop over 2 weeks. Compared to the US where daily numbers are steady for weeks with the last two days having the greatest number of detected cases.
  - rstuart4133 7y ago
    I've given up on the USA numbers. There is no way an underlying exponential process is going to deliver you a near constant 30K new infections for nearly 4 straight weeks. Something else is driving those numbers, and it ain't the actual number of new infections. For me the obvious candidate is they hits some testing limit.
    - pashamur 7y ago
      You shouldn't think of it as one underlying exponential process though. It could be many overlapping and time-delayed S-curve type graphs which are additively causing a constant rate of infections. Although it's also most certainly true that we're vastly undercounting the cases in most (if not all) areas.

GuB-42 7y ago

> What's the cite for that number? I'd be very suspicious of anything claiming a 5-significant-figure result in a disease that has only (heh) 3M known cases. You are totally right about that. I misinterpreted the following paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150748 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150748 The actual number is more like 1/100. The 1/10000 number is the probability for someone who has a 1/100 chance of being infected to develop symptoms after 14 days. Uhm... too late to fix my original post, sorry.