There are numerous other errors in the study, but I think I've made my point If I were the author or the journal, I'd retract the study immediately But that's just me
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.
-
Let me put it this way - if they've arrived at the right number using an incorrect calculation, then it's pretty unimpressive
End of conversation
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.