Old info. Public numbers, it's over 3.
Useful context for folks wondering how to interpret the 1.4-2.5 R-naught (reproductive number) for #nCoV2019.https://twitter.com/VirusWhisperer/status/1220561070282170368 …
-
-
-
I’m pretty sure you don’t have a source in this, but please do post it if you do. The r0 for the city of Wuhan will probably increase as a result of the quarantine, but that’s different.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The mode of transmission is different so it's maybe not the best analogy. It looks like it's a bit more infectious than seasonal flu, which may be a better comparison.
End of conversation
-
-
-
The problem with that R-naught number range is that China is not being truthful with their reporting of
#nCoV2019@seeinginfraredThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is it even possible to come up with that tight of a range this early? Also, I’ve heard SARS was super spreader driven whereas this seems to be spreading on a more normal distribution of contact with the exposed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is there any place to know which method they used to get R0? I’m assuming serial intervals? Kind of hard to get accurate R0 in the midst of the outbreak with other methods, or am I behind times already?
-
Short answer: No.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Airborne droplet!????
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The R Nought that is reported is a total fabrication. It is much,much higher.
-
I would go with "based on the evidence at hand", in deference to those struggling to come up with some medical battle plan. The info is, after all, limited by the Chinese government.
- 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.