This swing from R0 of 5.6 to R_t of 0.8 is *extremely* good news. This proves that the social distancing / lockdown was effective. I don't really agree with the 25% NYC infection estimate, but this should not count for much, as it is more of a hunch than any kind of estimate.https://twitter.com/youyanggu/status/1263208201983365120 …
-
-
Replying to @DanielleFong
It's possible it's lower than 25%, but that would imply an IFR of greater than 1%. Those have an inverse relationship. I think it's unlikely that it will be much lower than 20%.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @youyanggu
The main question with this is what they delays are: in reporting, in incubation, in progress in the disease, in how long it takes for it to be fatal. It could be that the people in Manhattan are quite strong physically -- I think you have to be to live there.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong
We take those factors into account in our model. If you're arguing that the fatality rate is lower in NYC, then the prevalence would actually be higher than 25%.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I'd be interested in the details. Specifically what I think is likely is that the course of disease is likely longer in the population that took public transit, while at the same time the proportion of super-spreaders and the rate of growth is much higher. Simultaneous effects
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.