People here are so inclined toward numbers that I fear people are latching basic reproduction rate (R0) without proper context. The transmissibility of a diseas

People here are so inclined toward numbers that I fear people are latching basic reproduction rate (R0) without proper context. The transmissibility of a disease is not some kind of invariant property of the pathogen. It's not meaningful to talk about the R0 of Ebola in any kind of historic sense. Jungle/rural outbreaks are going completely different from urban ones, and this is a very different outbreak than previous ones. Very simply, if you have a 100% transmissible disease and are in a sealed room with 0 people until the pathogen is gone, your R0 is zero. If you're in a room with 100 people, it's 100. I guess I'm saying that I'd love a reliable citation for your claim. Changes in R0 aren't necessarily evidence of that, and those claims (especially airborne transmission) is just needlessly and baselessly worrying people.