6 ms·
Where did you "hear" it has an R0 of 8-10? It's not time to be imprecise. If you're referencing the CDC's case study from Provincetown, I think it's important
by kkvcdyh 5y ago
Where did you "hear" it has an R0 of 8-10? It's not time to be imprecise.
If you're referencing the CDC's case study from Provincetown, I think it's important to point out that the R value cited is the R value during Bear Week, not on average.
- amirhirsch 5y agoWhen people present R0 as a property of the pathogen, you can take it as hot panicky air. From wiki: "R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen as it is also affected by other factors such as environmental conditions and the behaviour of the infected population."
- manwe150 5y agoWiki also lists this number as the current R0 (though without a source, as far as I can see). Found this study too in attempting to answer your question: https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/covid-19/forecasting/ https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/covid-19/forecasting/ And learned the difference with Rt today (which some others are quoting, eg for Alberta), is that Rt is computed, while R0 is a guess based on a model, to try to normalize Rt so that it is more comparable over time and place. So I thought that was cool!
- mdp2021 5y ago> It's not time to be imprecise :) Many of us have felt something along those lines since the early times. But e.g. the viral load for said variant was reported as _1000x_ Wuhan weeks ago, value changed to _3x_ days ago. I read the emergence of Tinnitus after COVID-19 weeks ago at _67%_, today at _0.shmbrmbsomething_. We are flooded in bad numbers. (And of course, that R0 is also circumstantial, vs the examples above...)