RT @yaneerbaryam: @JenniferKShea @jmcrookston Here: R0 estimated to be 5.7 "Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in W…
@DecodingTrolls And Delta binding affinity >> ancestral. Re: #2
@010wijk11 @maradonnyvdb @mmeeuw Baude statements Jan. In welke studie staat dat de IFR in de buurt van de griep ligt? Meeste studies die nu lopen geven een voorzichtige inschatting (JAMA https://t.co/9QbHairhje) van tussen 2 en 3 tot zelfs 6 (CDC https:
So if 1 person infects 6 and we have 43,000,000 known cases then theoretically 250,000,000 have been infected already or 75% of population and that does not include the vaccinated. CDC say r0 is somewhere between .4-5.0. Wi. test shows that 68% of vaccin
@DavidECathey2 https://t.co/9U789oLBCF This study has it a little closer to 6 actually. Either way it is much more contagious than the flu.
@morlockcapital @mcm_ct "Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7" https://t.co/3sE6GSGALA the fuck you talking about bro
@Scacciavillani @federicovasoli @YouTube @Forchielli Il dato R0 di Wuhan, prima che fosse presa qualsiasi misura di contenimento è più alta di 2.2 - 2.7, che era il dato dei #coronavirus precedenti https://t.co/bVoFOc7naH
@RylahBD @DevinLingo @eknielsen13 @atensnut Lol! I get my data from the academic literature. You must either be a troll or been living under a rock for 18 months. Maybe stop watching Fox News and explore google scholar. https://t.co/FTLvyANExD
@CuriosityBert @Starpam @SebGorka @ProTraderAlan Congrats, You've gotten very lucky Your N of 1 is inconsequential in light of the data... https://t.co/3dREteHPBK
@pennychenx1982 @mpconn @CTVNews The R0 for the flu of 1.3. Covid possibly between 2-3 although some studies show as high as 6... Also other than vaccination flu has never been actively reacted to with Social Distancing and Masking... https://t.co/3dREte
@disinformatico 1/ Guarda questo mio post Aprile'20 https://t.co/EA0t5yeez8 dove c'è uno studio #CDC USA dove si afferma che la contagiosità a #Wuhan era molto più alta del 2,2-2,7 che ancora si crede
@PedroFacon @Wouterthys1 Bron: https://t.co/KpPTc3nzGW Vaccineren zal wel nuttig zijn, maar dat "rijk der vrijheid" is fictie. Iedereen schuwt de harde taal, maar mensen zoals Wilmès, De Block, Auwers, Maron, en Jambon zouden moeten terechtgesteld worden
@Literroy It’s in the thread. Also here’s a link where you can read more.
@peterstaley @sullydish This is what it should be: R0 of ancestral strain was 5.7 https://t.co/Uik9EBhTRZ https://t.co/VhB1MdzGFk
@Bob_Wachter There's no way that R naught of the original SARS2 virus was under 3. I'm not convinced that it was 5.7, as noted in the following paper, but what happened in March 2020 wasn't due to an R0 of <3... https://t.co/GwVYvQYabG
More than twice as easily? So, you're saying that Delta has an R0 of over 10? Or are you referring to the early (faulty) models that placed OG-covid at 2.7%? Damn, I thought this was the party of science... https://t.co/GwVYvQYabG
Please get vaccinated if you haven't already wear your mask This is no joke https://t.co/AQDPML8Yh6
@MrDax30 @VaushV @Timcast More contagious than the flu by 2-3 times. https://t.co/SSAOMx0ba3
@random_poisson @lyniay Le R0 "en open bar" en agglomération faisait doubler les cas à Wuhan en quelques jours, ce qui est incompatible avec 1,3. Des études plus tardives l'estimaient à 5,7 (95% CI 3,8-8,9) : https://t.co/sF93YCXg0X
@RychezM @Grzegor71050803 @WojTyr68 @ragh_nsg @janusz_ucki @synxchaosu @MZ_GOV_PL Na Covid-19 mimo strategii prewencyjnych zapobiegających rozprzestrzenianiu się tego (bardziej zaraźliwego niż grypa https://t.co/AzAGqKfKR4 https://t.co/hZFGHf8kxr) wirusa z
@JanMak62165851 @mlyvla Není to nesmysl. Původní kmen viru má R0 cca necelých 6. CDC 5.7 https://t.co/sbssLJNc8M, dle studie 5.8 USA a 3.6-6.1 různé země Evropy https://t.co/if3nlej8dk Pak 1,5x alfa mutace a znovu 1,5x delta mutace. R0 v praxi nevidíme, l
халдвар авах учраас нийтээрээ тун автлаа тусгаарлалт маш сайн барих хэрэгтэй. Бас одоо Long Covid хэмээн ихээр ярих болсон. 1918 оны ханиадын R0 1.4-1.6 байсан бол энэ вирүсийнх 2.6-5.7 байгаа нь 2, 3 дахь давалгаа манайд болохыг үгүйсгэх аргагүй. Бас ht
@eugyppius1 @ExpatAftermath Most people who catch COVID don't give it to anyone, strangely. A minority are superspreaders and are just unbelievably contagious. No one knows why. https://t.co/onfxGRyvys
RT @CarlvKeirsbilck: @kwinkslager @chrisboyleuven @BenWeyts Hier gingen ze voor de oorspronkelijke variant al uit van een R0 van 5.7. : "…
@kwinkslager @chrisboyleuven @BenWeyts Hier gingen ze voor de oorspronkelijke variant al uit van een R0 van 5.7. : "we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)" => 5.7 x1.6 (Britse variant) x 1.6 (delta) = 15 https://t.co/nyDi3QPwDL
RT @mattsquair: High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 TL:DR Covid 19 as modeled has a med…
RT @normanswan: Just one study but scary if true. Social distancing is the main defence. High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acu…
RT @ret_ward: Early Release - High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 - Volume 26, Number 7…
@globalhlthtwit "R nought" vs. "Effective R". The former is R0, the latter is R. The CDC calculated a median R0 (initial Wuhan strain) of 5.7 https://t.co/4SwfBWs4Cd Whitty and Vallance always called the R0 much lower, I never saw the evidence upon whi
This analysis was subsequently redone by Sanche et al. at Los Alamos in March (not published in EID until July), who found a range of R0 values 3.8 - 8.9, with a median of 5.7, in substantial agreement with the earlier estimate by Tang et al. https://t.co
@richetchell Well looking at the rate deaths were rising in the UK in wave 1, it was clearly well above 3. But its not something thats easy to calculate. 5.7 is from here: https://t.co/nligJSEqXQ
@909_Art @chrischirp Depends which study you look at. I've seen 5.7 quoted... https://t.co/nligJSEqXQ
@benlandis A report at the CDC in June, 2020, showed the median R0 value for the SARS-CoV-2 virus to be ~5.7, not 2.5. Unless there's newer information to the contrary. https://t.co/jlul2zTeoT
@DrZoeHyde The original SARS-CoV-2 might have been higher, more like R0~5.7 https://t.co/rZGUI5O19B, in which case all those numbers are also higher.
@EricLangenstein @random_poisson @Fabien_L @afr2512 J'ai lu une estimation nettement plus élevée, du moins en milieu urbain comme Wuhan (un R0 n'est défini que dans un type d'environnement donné) : 5,7 (95% CI 3,8-8,9) https://t.co/sF93YCXg0X
RT @jlz0z: @dgurdasani1 @DFisman The CDC calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). This is a lot higher than first thought and…
RT @jlz0z: @ChrisDo30828241 @lisflett The herd immunity threshold formula is (R0-1)/R0 and the CDC estimated the original strain's R0 at ov…
@ChrisDo30828241 @lisflett The herd immunity threshold formula is (R0-1)/R0 and the CDC estimated the original strain's R0 at over 5. If it was equal to 5 then 80% of people would need to be immune for herd immunity to be a thing https://t.co/FRFZKyY7EP
@SeattleCPA @ZoeMcLaren @AdamJKucharski @nytimes @mgmgomes1 I don’t think I have ever stated a HIT of 50%. In the very early days I talked about a final size of 40-70% based on the then estimates of R0. Other reasonable estimates https://t.co/P6sJOH3fe5 a
The herd immunity formula is (R0-1)/R0. If R0=3 then 66% need infected or vaccinated If R0=4 then 75% If R0=5 then 80% The CDC calculated a median R0 (initial pre-Kent strain) of 5.7 https://t.co/4SwfBWs4Cd If R0=5.7 then 82.45% need infected or vacci
RT @jmcrookston: 2. Experts have noted this highly dispersed R0 for SARS2, and estimate that true R0/Reff may not 2.5-3.5 but in fact doubl…
RT @jmcrookston: Sanche from Feb 2020 = 5.7 https://t.co/uaCnLNVAHy
@jljcolorado I think people have underestimated R0 https://t.co/rZGUI5O19B which might have been 5.7 even back in China, and has since evolved to be higher in strains like B.1.1.7 and P.1
RT @jmcrookston: Sanche from Feb 2020 = 5.7 https://t.co/uaCnLNVAHy
Sanche from Feb 2020 = 5.7 https://t.co/uaCnLNVAHy
RT @CPita3: Is it though? 1) Estimates for R0 of measles range from 5 to 20+ (see thread) 2) Other estimates for R0 of SARS2 are as high a…
@NC_updipchick @petd111 @ptdecker @CDCgov @CDCMMWR Yes, because 5.7 is unheard of. 🙄 Meanwhile, the R-Naught of measles ranges from 12-18. Congratulations. You combined 1&2. I admit, I didn't anticipate that. https://t.co/adYGQIFkZP https://t.co/V
@RogueRad Sorry, I should have written February 2020 https://t.co/wi5gPOuFmY The IJID and EID papers came out in March 2020. https://t.co/w4s4YkSPFS What was rubella-like in contagiousness in 2020 , is trying to become like chickenpox in 2021 while aimi
RT @CPita3: Is it though? 1) Estimates for R0 of measles range from 5 to 20+ (see thread) 2) Other estimates for R0 of SARS2 are as high a…
RT @CPita3: Is it though? 1) Estimates for R0 of measles range from 5 to 20+ (see thread) 2) Other estimates for R0 of SARS2 are as high a…
RT @CPita3: Is it though? 1) Estimates for R0 of measles range from 5 to 20+ (see thread) 2) Other estimates for R0 of SARS2 are as high a…
RT @CPita3: Is it though? 1) Estimates for R0 of measles range from 5 to 20+ (see thread) 2) Other estimates for R0 of SARS2 are as high a…
RT @CPita3: Is it though? 1) Estimates for R0 of measles range from 5 to 20+ (see thread) 2) Other estimates for R0 of SARS2 are as high a…
Is it though? 1) Estimates for R0 of measles range from 5 to 20+ (see thread) 2) Other estimates for R0 of SARS2 are as high as 11.. 3) Why wasn't TB plotted? Its an Airborne virus and the R0 is ~3 🧐 https://t.co/ha06JBIM59 https://t.co/uLO1ncM07l http
@octonion Both papers here https://t.co/9nVAj8a1vS
RT @IftikharFirdous: With an R-nought value of median 5.7, to interrupt transmission of the Corona Virus, 82 percent of the population need…
RT @IftikharFirdous: With an R-nought value of median 5.7, to interrupt transmission of the Corona Virus, 82 percent of the population need…
With an R-nought value of median 5.7, to interrupt transmission of the Corona Virus, 82 percent of the population needs to be vaccinated or develop immunity against the virus. https://t.co/ReHysrCOuU https://t.co/g2c7EIqZ5Q
@ghawk787 @TheCarlMac @Chesschick01 This is my reference which reported the median R naught as 5.7. This was published in 7/2020 so it might not include any of the variants which are circulating now & are felt to be more contagious. Here's the link t
RT @jmcrookston: 2. Experts have noted this highly dispersed R0 for SARS2, and estimate that true R0/Reff may not 2.5-3.5 but in fact doubl…
@JenniferKShea @jmcrookston Here: R0 estimated to be 5.7 "Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)." https://t.co/
@jeffstone500 @skeatings @BuzzFeedNews Disease extinction is calculated as 1 – 1/R0. At R0 = 2.2, this threshold is only 55%. But at R0 = 82% (i.e., >82% of the population has to be immune, through either vaccination or prior infection, to achieve herd
RT @jmcrookston: 2. Experts have noted this highly dispersed R0 for SARS2, and estimate that true R0/Reff may not 2.5-3.5 but in fact doubl…
@martinscpfc @ONS An open access and peer reviewed publication suggests herd immunity sits within the range 55% (R=2.2) - 82% (R=5.7). This was analysis done on the initial unconstrained Wuhan epidemic https://t.co/KIUKKxbgBq
RT @hamagikukai: これ、CDCの公表した論文wだけど、その結果としてはどうだったんですか?w これが正しいなら、日本でワクチンは不要では?w 間違ってるなら、CDCがクソみたいなデマを公表し拡散したってことでは?w 何故罰せられないの? FBやTwitt…
これ、CDCの公表した論文wだけど、その結果としてはどうだったんですか?w これが正しいなら、日本でワクチンは不要では?w 間違ってるなら、CDCがクソみたいなデマを公表し拡散したってことでは?w 何故罰せられないの? FBやTwitterがアカウントに警告出したり凍結しなくていいのか?w
@Opoka63 @EnZie01681727 @PJDeSmedt @BenWeyts Zelfs als CFR op niveau van griep zou zitten (quod non) kom je in de problemen met een R-waarde tussen 3 en 6. Dat is ook wat je in het buitenland ziet waar nationalistische populisten de risico's opzoeken. http
@C_A_Gustave @gro_tsen Quant au R0 de Wuhan, il est estimé aux environs de 5,7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9) par d'autres études. https://t.co/sF93YCXg0X
@egarridf @jeeva_vlc @el_pais Pues va a resultar que en una breve búsqueda por la intenné, me he topado con el "estudio"...que en realidad es un PREPRINT, uséase que no ha pasado la revisión por pares y publicado...hasta JULIO DE 2020 🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻 https://t.co/5
@Mike_BanksMD @ohsnapzbrah @GovMikeDeWine Here you go, I’ll help you out: https://t.co/sof9hq4Ptc
@UpliftDemocracy @SethAbramson You are confusing the base reproduction number R0 with an effective reproduction number; that's my point. https://t.co/scXEYzbieV
@UpliftDemocracy @SethAbramson It's from a CDC publication, the median of a confidence interval in their estimate of R0. And, yes, the base reproduction number is a norm, not to be confused with the effective reproduction number. https://t.co/scXEYzbieV
In any case, we are looking at a state in which at least 40% have some form of immunity. This is where the intellectual fun begins. First, let's ask about the "herd immunity" threshold. I've maintained since 2/20 , that LANL's estimate is the one I trust h
@baert_cedric @SMeerbeeck @SDicht @k_sienaert @DasUlrike @Tweedle65921973 @HarrySpoelstra Allez, laten we nu uitgaan van 50%. Hypothetisch. R0 corona = 5.7 (CDC) https://t.co/nyDi3QPwDL R0 griep (waar kinderen zonder twijfel driver van zijn) = 1 à 2. 5.
@SirJelle @DasUlrike @Tweedle65921973 Maar stel nu heel even, hypothetisch dat minderjarigen maar HALF zo besmettelijk zijn. R0 (oude varianten!) = 5.7! https://t.co/nyDi3QPwDL R0 griep = 1 à 2 5.7/2 = 2.85. Zelfs indien maar HALF zo besmettelijk blijv
The contagiousness of #SARSCoV2 might be higher than expected. R(0) of ~ 5 has often been described. https://t.co/qyiLlrtIVn https://t.co/3bH3jcW6N2
@Brian_Orak @VictorB123 @TonyBurnetti @hershtal @DanLenz10 @Nadav_Eyal @RanBalicer @ClalitHealth My estimation is 4.5 for B.1.1.7 and 1.5 for flu. However there are much higher estimations for SARS-CoV-2 (for the wild type). E.g.: https://t.co/ieedPY9z0k +
@nonexistentuse4 @AuroriaTwittori @KubeCatherine Your personal anecdote is meaningless. The R0 for Covid-19 is 3.8-8.9, which is not as contagious as measles, but a lot more contagious than seasonal influenza i.e. highly contagious. https://t.co/mHsu1vhTh
@AuroriaTwittori @nonexistentuse4 @KubeCatherine The R0 for Covid-19 is 3.8-8.9, whereas R0 for seasonal influenza is 0.9–2.1. https://t.co/mHsu1vhThv https://t.co/qpA0iT8ILo
@JahD1191 @GovMikeDeWine Source (2 of 2): https://t.co/CRpUA8TS6D
A retweet from 06/29/2020 calculating the 95% confidence interval for herd immunity rate to be 73–89%. If newer lineages of SARS-CoV-2 spread faster, meaning they have a higher R₀, then that estimate needs to be increased. https://t.co/lgauBXIZEK
@ntldr2020 So here is my analysis. I will assume that LANL is right (https://t.co/zulHMLJXmw) as they have been right before in similar modeling matters. SARSCOV2 was a R0 of 6 kind of virus. The observed seroprevalence of 52% thus leaves room for another
@p_jvanos @DasUlrike @Tweedle65921973 @SMeerbeeck @k_sienaert @HarrySpoelstra "we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)" https://t.co/nyDi3QPwDL
@dgurdasani1 @DFisman The CDC calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). This is a lot higher than first thought and is pre the Kent variant too. https://t.co/4SwfBWs4Cd An R0 of 5.7 would mean an 83.46% herd immunity threshold. Pursuing a
RT @DanielWiczew: A CDC's research shows that COVID-19 has R0 of about 5.7 (Flu has about 1.3). R0 is how many people an infected person ca…
A CDC's research shows that COVID-19 has R0 of about 5.7 (Flu has about 1.3). R0 is how many people an infected person can infect on average. Furthermore, new strain which is about 50% more infectious, might have R0 8.7. https://t.co/98i3rdATlp #COVID19 #
@play36inaday @alexthompo @SuzanneEvans1 the flu has an R0 of around 1.3 (on avg, depending on the strain). COVID's has been estimated as anywhere from 2.5 (https://t.co/Hyk9dGVKEc) to 5.7 (https://t.co/vy7TqfyO0r). so by definition COVID is more transmiss
@Gregory_Verdugo @Hergeloffeni @vincentglad effectifs. Cependant Manaus n'est pas du tout dans une situation sans aucune restriction. C'est très troublant. Source pour le R0 réévalué : https://t.co/sF93YCXg0X