Even if we can't fully stop transmission, sustained changes in behaviour (e.g. self-isolation for week when ill, hand washing, reducing close-knit interactions where possible) could dramatically reduce spread.
-
-
Show this thread
-
(Above calculation assumes reproduction number of 2.5 and serial interval of 5 days for COVID-19 in early stages of an outbreak. These are obviously rough calculations based on average values – second value comes from 1.25^6=3.8)
Show this thread -
Quick clarification on this: the calculation gives the number of *new* cases that we'd expect to be appearing in a month's time – to get the total cases overall, we'd need to add up all the generations of infection. Still, same conclusion: we really need to reduce transmission.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Govt policy in terms of saving lives has been a dud. The do nothing strategy is not going away and the deliberate mass infection policy is to continue as the diabolical Matt Hancock is emoting.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Look forward to pub of model with all assumptions. No one questions basic math. Rather your assumptions on impact of policy on lowering R. What evidence that 2 modest policies lead to 50% reduction (as govt said thu)? Given evidence from other countries, this seems way off.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you for your orderly info.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interesting thing that for all the pseudo science spouted by Cumming’s super forecasting mob, is they don’t seem to get the basics of decision and risk analysis. Doing nothing is a decision.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.