3 ms·

> I am looking for 14 days quoted in the parent comment and not finding it. 2 to 6 days incubation time is not "long". > I am sympathetic to the idea but bein

> I am looking for 14 days quoted in the parent comment and not finding it. 2 to 6 days incubation time is not "long". > I am sympathetic to the idea but being overconfident It's not being overconfident: it's what the currently available data says. The largest contact tracing study I am aware of, in India, reported that the largest cause of spread were superspreading events.

JamisonM 6y ago
Saying that you are not being overconfident with that level of confidence seems like a red flag. If COVID-19 is primarily driven by superspreader events that are largely not happening anymore in the 2nd wave that is causing case increases across nearly every jurisdiction in the world I have doubts.
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  > Saying that you are not being overconfident with that level of confidence seems like a red flag. Were it just me, I'd agree with you, however it is the data that we must look at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/29/science.abd7672 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/29/scie...
  - JamisonM 6y ago
    In the spirit of open discussion I would like to raise to you some salient facts. The article in question does not address the fact that I raised, and also you shouldn't make claims the authors are not making: "Our findings, based on comprehensive surveillance and contact-tracing data from the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, provide insight into the epidemiology of COVID-19 in resource-limited populations." Specifically: "Whereas incidence declined steadily at ages older than 30 to 39 years in the two Indian states, incidence increased at ages of ≥65 years in the United States." So their finding might be applicable if the general trends matched but the study specifically says they don't, in the way that I generally pointed towards. Also the study in question points to "superspreading individuals" but not "superspreading events" and that difference is significant. A "superspreader" who attends an event that can cause superspreading event, but a superspreader that goes to many places and meets just a few people at those places can super-spread! It's different! The study does NOT support your implied claim that asymptomatic spreaders can't be superspreaders.

JamisonM 6y ago

Saying that you are not being overconfident with that level of confidence seems like a red flag. If COVID-19 is primarily driven by superspreader events that are largely not happening anymore in the 2nd wave that is causing case increases across nearly every jurisdiction in the world I have doubts.

lbeltrame 6y ago
> Saying that you are not being overconfident with that level of confidence seems like a red flag. Were it just me, I'd agree with you, however it is the data that we must look at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/29/science.abd7672 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/29/scie...
- JamisonM 6y ago
  In the spirit of open discussion I would like to raise to you some salient facts. The article in question does not address the fact that I raised, and also you shouldn't make claims the authors are not making: "Our findings, based on comprehensive surveillance and contact-tracing data from the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, provide insight into the epidemiology of COVID-19 in resource-limited populations." Specifically: "Whereas incidence declined steadily at ages older than 30 to 39 years in the two Indian states, incidence increased at ages of ≥65 years in the United States." So their finding might be applicable if the general trends matched but the study specifically says they don't, in the way that I generally pointed towards. Also the study in question points to "superspreading individuals" but not "superspreading events" and that difference is significant. A "superspreader" who attends an event that can cause superspreading event, but a superspreader that goes to many places and meets just a few people at those places can super-spread! It's different! The study does NOT support your implied claim that asymptomatic spreaders can't be superspreaders.