@mlipsitch wouldn't we have observed higher serology estimates most places by now if the Los Alamos doubling times (even given slowed transmission post intervention) were accurate, given when community transmission began?
r0 of 5.7 seems high but is believable. 1. Spain population 47 million 2. Serological prevalence 5% 3. 2.35 million infections so far. 4. r0 estimate = 5.7 5. 5.7^x = 2,350,000, x = # cycles = 8.4 6. Assume 2 week cycle 7. 8.4 * 2 weeks = 17 weeks = 4 monthspic.twitter.com/SMjq9AIRwE
-
-
We are sooooooo early into this pandemic. Have fun getting 87% herd immunity everyone. https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1261363660032626689?s=20 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A 2 week cycle seems high. In the Skagit County cluster, people who got sick had symptoms within five days and most were at 3 days post exposure:https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm#T1_down …
-
In that case, the 5.7 r0 is totally believable and may be a bit low, before controlling for increased mask usage.
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.