3 ms·

I don't think I fully understand your argument. Could you expand on it a bit more?

Vecr 3y ago
My argument is that infecting zero or one person is common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdispersion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdispersion It's why you can get superspreaders without making the r0 a crazy high number. Most people don't transmit much if at all, but a few people transmit a huge amount. You can look at the actual curves if you want.
- Scandiravian 3y ago
  Thanks for clarifying it for me I think that the argument you're quoting was not so much about how many people would have been infected by this hypothetical patient zero, but that the combined probability of all those events is much smaller than the likelihood of an infected animal transmitting the disease to anyone at the market That's where the whole discussion about 1/10.000 comes from, since it would require the one person that gets infected to be a worker from the wet market compared to a colleague or a random passer-by at another location I think that the main point Peter is making is that probability of transmission from racoon dog * cumulative number of people close to racoon dog >> combined probability of those events If I've misunderstood your point, I'd appreciate if you could point out where I went wrong
  - Vecr 3y ago
    You've got it mostly right but in this case there would be no racoon dog in the chain. It would be a lab leak. I'm about 30% on that, but what I say is a worker from the lab infecting people at the wet market (or infecting someone who goes to the market, etc) takes up most of that probability.
    - Scandiravian 3y ago
      I think I phrased myself poorly, the racoon dog part is the probability where it's a Zoonotic origin The probability of someone getting infected from a racoon dog is much higher than the joined probability required for the lab leak. Someone from the lab only infecting a single person is only a part of the probability of the lab leak, then there's the likelihood of them either going to the market or being close enough to the vendor to cause an infection at some other place I think Peter's argument is that given the amount of conditionals for that to occur it has a low likelihood compared to a racoon dog infecting just one of the people at the market that day

Vecr 3y ago

My argument is that infecting zero or one person is common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdispersion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdispersion It's why you can get superspreaders without making the r0 a crazy high number. Most people don't transmit much if at all, but a few people transmit a huge amount. You can look at the actual curves if you want.

Scandiravian 3y ago
Thanks for clarifying it for me I think that the argument you're quoting was not so much about how many people would have been infected by this hypothetical patient zero, but that the combined probability of all those events is much smaller than the likelihood of an infected animal transmitting the disease to anyone at the market That's where the whole discussion about 1/10.000 comes from, since it would require the one person that gets infected to be a worker from the wet market compared to a colleague or a random passer-by at another location I think that the main point Peter is making is that probability of transmission from racoon dog * cumulative number of people close to racoon dog >> combined probability of those events If I've misunderstood your point, I'd appreciate if you could point out where I went wrong
- Vecr 3y ago
  You've got it mostly right but in this case there would be no racoon dog in the chain. It would be a lab leak. I'm about 30% on that, but what I say is a worker from the lab infecting people at the wet market (or infecting someone who goes to the market, etc) takes up most of that probability.
  - Scandiravian 3y ago
    I think I phrased myself poorly, the racoon dog part is the probability where it's a Zoonotic origin The probability of someone getting infected from a racoon dog is much higher than the joined probability required for the lab leak. Someone from the lab only infecting a single person is only a part of the probability of the lab leak, then there's the likelihood of them either going to the market or being close enough to the vendor to cause an infection at some other place I think Peter's argument is that given the amount of conditionals for that to occur it has a low likelihood compared to a racoon dog infecting just one of the people at the market that day