This is why distancing & hygiene have reduced spread in some areas to ~ or below 1, meaning it's either steadily spreading in the population but not yet decreasing, or slowing a bit in some areas where it's hovering less than 1. This is what we want--decreased transmission. /2
-
-
Show this thread
-
But keep in mind R0 is an average over the population. Some people may be responsible for a disproportionate amount of spread, and some may never spread it at all. https://twitter.com/maiamajumder/status/1220802808976486406 … /3
Show this thread -
Remember the aspects of transmission that make up R0: how long a person is infectious (longer = more people they will transmit the virus to, all other things being equal); # of contacts per unit time (more = more potential for spread)... /4
Show this thread -
...and mode of spread. For most people for example, they'll spread a respiratory infection to more people than an infection that's spread by sexual activity. You're probably in close contact with plenty of people you're not having sex with (no judgement though). /5
Show this thread -
Sometimes this constellation of aspects of transmission can lead to superspreading events. Maybe a person is coinfected with another respiratory virus (virus 2) that means they spread virus 1 more efficiently than others do lacking virus 2. /6
Show this thread -
Maybe they simply have way more contacts while they are infectious than the average person: they work @ a place where they're in close contact with lots of people, or they're socially gregarious, or they just wander around a city all day shopping & on public transportation. /7
Show this thread -
But remember, R0 is still calculated as an average over the population. So while some people may transmit to a lot of people, others may not transmit it all, so again, heterogeneity. We don't say R0 is large (or small) due to a single spreading event. /finhttps://twitter.com/maiamajumder/status/1220802808976486406 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This thread means next to nothing in light of the fact that in Jan-Feb, R0 numbers between 4-6 were dramatically tossed about ensure support for nationwide lock-downs. The number was not tossed around with the caveat that if we stayed home, we could reduce it. Bad, shady stuff.
-
did you completely miss what “slowing the spread” and “bending the curve” were about? it was all about reducing infection opportunity.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@threadreaderapp, unroll please. -
Hola, you can read it here:
@aetiology: So let's talk a bit about R0 and superspreading events, because I guess we're returning to February.… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1260004940728188928.html … See you soon.
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.