This is nonsensical. Even taking their entire approach at face value, the correlation between these two variables was only r^2 = 0.22 It is, again, simply wrong to just multiply the values out like this, because quite clearly there is more going on
Ideally, you'd want a more sophisticated estimate of R and some attempt at an SIR model, which any infectious disease epi could've done for them
-
-
Just come back to this and realized that it's actually wrong - the R(ADIR) in the paper isn't in any way an estimate of R(eff). They've confused infectious period with serial interval, which I suspect has driven some of the bad calculations
-
Agree to some extent - I don't think their derivation is good - but I think the actual calculation may not be that far off. Better might be 7-day rolling avg of new cases divided by previous 7-day rolling avg, all raised to the power of (6.5/7) if 6.5 days is the serial interval.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.