Various analyses highlighting potential for sustained human-to-human transmission of #nCoV2019. Current 'estimates' of R0:
- @JulRiou & @C_Althaus: 2.2 (90% interval: 1.4-3.8)
- @JonRead et al.: 3.8 (95% interval: 3.6-4.0)
- @maiamajumder & @mandl: 2.0-3.3
- @nextstrain: 1.5-3.5
-
I guess it's a slightly different issue to comparability, but difficult to make fully reproducible when there's proprietary data involved ie. travel data. Is there any way around that?
When an estimate from 3.6-4.0 gets revised to 2.4-2.6, the underlying model is clearly flawed. Confidence intervals are far too narrow. Our study is fully reproducible. Methods described in preprint, and code files available on GitHub:https://github.com/jriou/wcov
-
-
Very true, and not surprising when feeding a deterministic SIR model counts. That being said, the meta pop study does attempt to get at the reporting rate. Again suffers from overconfidence, but using info in the shape of curve not just magnitude might be useful
-
Although, maybe a bit early to be calling it a "shape"...
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.