This modelling study from Sweden suggests 26% of Stockholm county will have been infected by May 1st (https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/2da059f90b90458d8454a04955d1697f/skattning-peakdag-antal-infekterade-covid-19-utbrottet-stockholms-lan-februari-april-2020.pdf …). However, our estimates of under-reporting suggest only 5-10% have been infected so far (https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/global_cfr_estimates.html …). So what's going on? 1/
-
Deze collectie tonen
-
Als antwoord op @AdamJKucharski
Thanks for this explanation. I didn’t read the report closely yet, but in their fitting it seemed like they were also trying to attribute a slowing in growth to some build up of immunity? (When really it could just be people staying at home.) Did you notice anything like that?
4 antwoorden 3 retweets 54 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @nataliexdean @AdamJKucharski
This might have just been in the earlier version of the report, where they considered three scenarios (missed reporting of 99%, 99.5%, and 99.9%). Great to hear your thoughts.
2 antwoorden 1 retweet 14 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @nataliexdean
In this version, the model allows for a decline in transmission rate, which seems to explain much of the slowdown. Key issue seems to be how infections in the model are compared to test prevalence data.
1 antwoord 3 retweets 15 vind-ik-leuks
I don't know the Swedish model well enough but if they did indeed assume that infectious period = being positive by qPCR, then that's a big mistake. This assumption likely isn't true in many cases - e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x …
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.