Data for this: 1) Weibull distribution fit to UN 2000 population data https://t.co/sUfSCtysTC 2) Prop of the population susceptible: from LANL's R0 work https://t.co/CslTB6DfLm 3) Relative Risk : https://t.co/Turfj06F8R 4) Disclaimer: this is for the firs
@DBlameble @Fabien_L Les premières estimations, oui. Mais des études complémentaires ont relevé ce chiffre à la hausse : https://t.co/sF93YCXg0X
@JolieEmile @Fabien_L Le R0 de Wuhan en janvier 2020, avec 0 gestes barrières, avait été réévalué à une médiane de 5,7 : https://t.co/sF93YCXg0X
RT @FrankfurtZack: @AdamJKucharski @nataliexdean As expected, calculation of "early R0" is a total BS. The model cited by CDC makes the na…
@RElflock @Strange79Lisa @DonaldJTrumpJr And this one might interest you as well... https://t.co/bjU0bTpgay
@GuidoBrera @nzingaretti @AzzolinaLucia @GiuseppeConteIT Variante troppo veloce? #Garattini del #MarioNegrI ha detto ieri che non c'è prova che la #varianteinglese sia più contagiosa anche perché uno studio della CDC dice che la variante di #Wuhan ha una c
@denver_mccomb R0 means 0 reproduction. Inert. Like you. COVID R is around 4.7 (not including B117 variant) 1918 pandemic approx R 2.5. Fatality rates differ due to 100 years of scientific and medical advancement. https://t.co/Jov5oVxdEY
@Hold2LLC @boodad12 @districtai Here CDC R0 5.7% Herd immunity 82% IFR 0.5% Now calculate how many will die in SD. Can you do that? https://t.co/5UQtWoKYyl
@tistel @bjornsing @nntaleb Den här typen av tonen hjälper inte och visar inte kompetens. 5.7 var det som uppskattades i den första ”seriösa” artikeln: https://t.co/s2jfTYWFJT
@LiteSeeker18 @kierafeldman You're quoting out of date info (prior to March) for R0. The actual number for the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 is about 5.7 https://t.co/dp4KI4YlUM
@raquelggc @estalatadepepsi @oscar_simpson_ @noaylucky @villaratorules @elFrijolazo_ @toni17lopez @alonso_frutos @evciara @velardedaoiz2 @Casconet Que sólo haya un 10% de la población que se ha contagiado, con evidencia de contagios desde verano de 2019 (h
@Lin98941237 @jhaskinscabrera You source is from February. Now that we have more data, r0 estimated from 3.5-6 (without mitigation) https://t.co/UC4XAna8CJ
@MREathome @SoxFanInSD @EricTopol @CovidActNow Here...R0 of 5.7 without mitigation. https://t.co/5UQtWoKYyl
@GuillaumeRozier Le taux de reproduction de base, à savoir le taux de reproduction *sans aucune mesure*, qui permettrait de revenir à la vie d'avant à l'identique, est plutôt de l'ordre de 5,7, selon cette étude qui fait référence. Ce qui place l'immunité
@MatCMeier Die Wuhan-Variante hatte gemäss dieser Studie der Los Alamaos Labs bereits eine Schwelle von über 80%. Wo kommen die 60% her? https://t.co/G7hdjtIIUt
RT @bill_fsp: @BrentCa24718741 @DrShaena I've personally not heard 90%. A study published by the CDC showed an R0 of ~5.7 for SARS-CoV-2, w…
@BrentCa24718741 @DrShaena I've personally not heard 90%. A study published by the CDC showed an R0 of ~5.7 for SARS-CoV-2, which dictates 82% for HI. See the study for details: https://t.co/jlul2zTeoT New strains may have higher/lower R0, IDK.
@zipjet Read again https://t.co/9nVAj8a1vS
RT @ChristosArgyrop: @julietast2 @mgmgomes1 @BallouxFrancois The original R0>5.5 paper by LANL was published in EID back in July: https://t…
@julietast2 @mgmgomes1 @BallouxFrancois The original R0>5.5 paper by LANL was published in EID back in July: https://t.co/zulHMLslXW The "natural history" R0 in Europe early in the epidemic were also published back in March https://t.co/MinPhs86Jd This
@__ice9 @ChristosArgyrop Really? I’d seen 5.7 from the early days
@Rvpaname @BeaudouxCelyan @totomathon @Alexevryy @gauloiskiki Juste des maths : IFR = 0,7% Population française : 67 millions. Taux de reproduction sans aucune mesure = 5,7 (variant anglais non pris en compte) (https://t.co/OQsPnQ1y5b) Nombre de morts en
Just a reminder that R0 for SARS-CoV-2 may in fact be higher than 2.5-3.5. In fact, perhaps even double that (R0 = 5-7)
How contagious is it? #covid19 30/ https://t.co/JY0O6NCqHz
@Rooster21156239 @FormallySomeone @JeremyDBoreing Not that you're even capable of understanding the evidence in the first place, but here: https://t.co/coERVqQc5W
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 And the R0 they cite isn't even correct! This CDC article found a median R0 of 5.7. https://t.co/IuMUmjTs9H
@BelleBoite1 @amlivemon Los Alamos analysis of Wuhan back in January (PRE D614G which is even MORE infectious) https://t.co/PybJOiZ5yM https://t.co/rRyK5eCI4b
@PortfolioNinja @wesbury That's including NPIs. Los Alamos had #SARSCoV2 estimated at 5.7 since February https://t.co/PybJOiZ5yM https://t.co/uE0QQFTB3Y
RT @LaurelCoons: Reproduction Number (R0): 🦠Number of new #coronavirus infections generated by each infected person 🦠Initially R0 = ~2.2-…
RT @emilyst: I hadn't seen any R₀ figures since early in the pandemic, when they were kicking around numbers between 1 and 3. This study f…
I hadn't seen any R₀ figures since early in the pandemic, when they were kicking around numbers between 1 and 3. This study from back in July puts the R₀ of SARS-CoV-2 at 5.7, above the flu and the common cold. https://t.co/atcZ8Zrwas
@manofs3x @BeigeShiba Varies by study, but 5.7 is the 'unmitigated spread' number. https://t.co/l737XKPTAv
@FPWellman A CDC report a few weeks ago revised the R0 for this virus to 5.7, which means 82% with anti-bodies for herd immunity. That would mean millions of deaths, without a vaccine. 15% is a long-damned way from 82%. https://t.co/jlul2zTeoT
@Kassiopea11 @Pietro_70 Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). I kdyby měla jen těch 3.8, tak je to víc než chřipka. Mnohem víc. Chřipka má i podle článků před covidem R pod 2. https://t.co/oQejh
@kpac_15 @imgrund @CMOH_Alberta Not quite, it's a *bit* higher than that. But nice try bud! https://t.co/IuMUmjTs9H
@MarkReady47 @jneill @cpsambrook @DPJHodges @ClareCraigPath Nowhere near HIT and needs vaccination to get there: "The R0 values we estimated have important implications ... >82% of the population has to be immune, through either vaccination or prior in
@MarkReady47 @Reasonableques3 @jneill @cpsambrook @DPJHodges @ClareCraigPath Funny, because research was the source of the numbers I gave: https://t.co/zLTzUN6xHU https://t.co/H6PjC5y0A5
@GlennROConnor @HijGF @GNev2 Yeah, it’s 5.7 according to the CDC https://t.co/Lqs2yZMygl
RT @AdolfoDLima: 4. A (3) hay que sumarle algo importantísimo, la enfermedad parece ser muy contagiosa. Aunque estudios iniciales ubicaban…
4. A (3) hay que sumarle algo importantísimo, la enfermedad parece ser muy contagiosa. Aunque estudios iniciales ubicaban la tasa de transimisión a niveles similares a los de la gripe común, otros mas recientes casi la duplican: https://t.co/RaCaJxPIzn
Perfect!
RT @treygrimes4: People don’t think this way enough. With an R0 value of about 5.7, you can indirectly harm a lot of people. Just because y…
People don’t think this way enough. With an R0 value of about 5.7, you can indirectly harm a lot of people. Just because you and your friends are young and healthy, that does not mean everyone around you is. #WearAMask https://t.co/3f3XcfWj2b
@Drstevenhobbs @RevNFidel I read a CDC report (that was back in July) that the COVID R0 number was 5.7. Meaning one person would average infecting nearly 6 people. But that was back in July. I don't know if that number had changed? https://t.co/r9aPqPr
@BobRmhenry1 @irritatedwoman It’s more contagious than the flu. Typically someone with the flu infects 1-2 people. Someone with covid it’s closer to 6. https://t.co/kicsW5RKYf
@crouzet @francois_ripoll @LehmannDrC @DidierPittet @BAG_OFSP_UFSP @alain_berset 5,7 selon cette étude CDC https://t.co/v9hCVTHXQH
@mizloq 武漢の初期R0を5.7と推定したロスアラモス国立研究所の論文 https://t.co/iv14ufRyEn
@0xDEADBEEF7 @PolyglotPaul @vonderleyen Current best understanding has it as more contagious than influenza, less contagious than measles. Covid -https://t.co/5Y3NhYRFpS Other diseases -https://t.co/GkCn4ThFiP
@cutecanukgirl @chipmcdonald @okotoksmatt @eskiesfan895 @CMOH_Alberta Here you go. Primary sources, since you apparently use them: Strep (there are different kinds) averages about an R0 of 2. https://t.co/35mQNVU92C. Covid-19 has an R0 value of around 5.
@Anapecalleddave @rowlsmanthorpe @BristOliver They are some very well documented examples of very high naive (3.5-5) R0 (https://t.co/euRJLAJsXA) for COVID19. https://t.co/G3NZZDAM8e https://t.co/ylDJSviIlu
@LadyDrouina @DrJohnathanKiel @smokeyjo68 I came across the 5.7 value at: https://t.co/QFmth4K5Ud which referenced: https://t.co/1RekFcG5dL I understand the number can fluctuate as we learn more about it but given the incubation period while remaining
@salami_boy_2003 @VoteBluePA @cnnbrk You're an idiot plain and simple. It wouldn't matter if I told you 1 + 1 = 2. This is because you believe. Belief is what people do when they don't know. Those who know don't believe. https://t.co/F2gion2yU0
@antonioripa con un R0 di (3.8-8.9 95%) del #coronavirus https://t.co/r06T6zUbUL non puoi adottare il metodo svedese ma esso dimostra che la recrudescenza dell'infezione é dovuto ai vari #lockdown che appiattiscono la curva ma non fermano il contagio
RT @RawheaD: ヒェッ……R-0 = 5.7。 95%信頼区間でも3.8 - 8.9って。 だれだよ、インフルより感染力低いって言ってたの┐(´~`;)┌
@DRedecopp @bobcesca_go I was looking at R0 at the beginning of October when people were talking about herd immunity. A study published on the CDC site in July shows the R0 value for this virus to be ~5.7! https://t.co/jlul2zTeoT
@CT_Bergstrom @_stah @jljcolorado @LundeenOttawa But some studies have generated higher R0? This one calculated a mean R0 of 5.7, upper CI limit was 8.9. RO of 9 is chickenpox numbers is it not? https://t.co/IuMUmjTs9H
@Tedward_edward @John_Muddle @BristOliver Here is where it gets fucking scary. US CDC has the median. R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). That is more than double China estimates. If we see anything like this in winter then expect to see truly eye popping nu
RT @vogon: cw: coronavirus got to wondering how many covid-19 cases "leak through" imperfect masking this morning and decided to make a sp…
RT @vogon: cw: coronavirus got to wondering how many covid-19 cases "leak through" imperfect masking this morning and decided to make a sp…
@LordCecilSmythe @skepticscouser @MarPerRodr @Telegraph Base R rate for Covid19 2.2 to 2.7 that might get higher in crowded spaces, etc. Are you ready to say this is a win, appropriate it as your own wisdom and pass it on to others? The sooner R is below 1
RT @serdardirican: Yüksek bulaşıcılığı olan bir hastalık bu. Aşağıdaki makalede 5.7 diyor. Çok çok yüksek bulaşıcılığı olan bir virüs yani…
RT @serdardirican: Yüksek bulaşıcılığı olan bir hastalık bu. Aşağıdaki makalede 5.7 diyor. Çok çok yüksek bulaşıcılığı olan bir virüs yani…
Yüksek bulaşıcılığı olan bir hastalık bu. Aşağıdaki makalede 5.7 diyor. Çok çok yüksek bulaşıcılığı olan bir virüs yani. Bu derece bulaşıcılığı olan virüs için en başta Çin 'den gelen kimse kabul edilmemeliydi. Adamlar dünyaya bulaştırdılar... https://
@jaanis888 @IlzeJaunberga Ja jūs atvērtu wiki linku, kuru iedevu augstāk, tad jums būtu iespēja apskatīties atsauces un starp tām atrast šo papīru https://t.co/1n736esT0A https://t.co/zxvwOY0Vgc
@_ilf_ Между другото, има изследвания, която показват и по-висок коефициент R0=5.7, вместо 3 за новият коронавирус: https://t.co/vZSWukxMJF
@shawnwatson5 @Telegraph Looks like he has blocked me but if he is still watching: For example, a study published April 7 in the journal Emerging Infectious Disease used mathematical modelling to calculate an R0 of nearly 6 in China. Flu is 1.3 https://t.c
@BristOliver achieve herd immunity.' https://t.co/tGZU0CZkCX
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…
@ChiefStevieP @richamartin @UKCovid19Stats Yes, it can. This is now backed by empirical evidence. '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
@TheRealMo777 @therealKikoD @patticakeski @JamesThom252 @tmactroy @howardrgold1 @DrewHolden360 Higher contagion and R0 https://t.co/ffdRaLWw1w
@NICU_doc_salone @TFaddy From your real experience do you have a feel for what the R0 in normal times would be, or is that possible. Does the paper on Wuhan having initial R 50% chance > 5.7 stack up? https://t.co/im8ZfVBMTj
@RobertPicardo @realDonaldTrump Recent study shows the R0 value, how contagious a virus is, for this virus to be ~5.7, which means 82% is needed for herd immunity. That's more than 7.5 million deaths, assuming no effective vaccine. 327M, 82%=268.14M, 2.85%
#3DeOctubre Alto grado de contagio y rápida propagación del síndrome respiratorio agudo grave Coronavirus 2 https://t.co/WRMON4OU1d
@andrewflood @Reasonableques3 Optimistic about vaccine timeline or effectiveness? If the R0 of Covid is around the median 5.7 estimated in Wuhan pre Covid behavioural changes https://t.co/im8ZfVBMTj, then to get back to normal it will require substantial u
@washdems A recent study shows the R0 value for this virus to be ~5.7, which means 82% is needed for herd immunity. 7,614,893 * 82% = 6,244,212 infected and 179,209 dead (2.87%) with no effective vaccine. That's really what this person thinks is acceptabl
@Sc_Meerkat @MartinWiseman17 @BBCNews https://t.co/mrCmLq4JZE from July '20 Earlier estimates had Ro as around 2.5. Estimates are increasing not shrinking as more data becomes available. 2-4 times more infectious than flu. You should check facts before get
WHAT? So the uninterrupted R0 of the SARS-CoV-2 is 5.7?! Here I was... thinking that it was 2-2.5... https://t.co/DIXy3SNMN5
@MartinThornber @apsmunro @d_spiegel 'We found R0 is likely to be 5.7 given our current state of knowledge, with a broad 95% CI (3.8–8.9).' Go figure what happens next in UK when playing with fire. 👁🗨🙈🙈☕️☕️https://t.co/YObeTg3x1d
El número reproductivo básico R0 del #sarscov2 se ha calculado en 5,7. El R0 de la gripe de 1918 se calcula en un máximo de 2,8. Esta información es fundamental para establecer planes reales de emergencia contra el virus. https://t.co/k3V4tbkMbY https:/
@emulenews Habría que añadir que el valor calculado de R0 es 5,7 para #SARSCoV2 y el R0 del de la #influenza1918 se calcula en 2,8 máximo. Casi 3 puntos mas. https://t.co/k3V4tbkMbY
@esaagar From the CDC the herd immunity threshold for disease extinction is 55%. The current 22% in NYC would have a measurable impact on the number of cases. Fauci is playing to the crowd again. https://t.co/o6cCHAe8mD
@carly_x @Mudney @abitofshoepie @BorisJohnson Sorry for speaking generally, peer reviewed journal with Covid R rate at 5.7 - https://t.co/nLZ24QyhUE For arguments sake, lets quadruple the accepted r rate of seasonal flu to 5.2 - flu is still no compariso
@ThManfredi @gianlucac1 @CrossWordsCW 1/ il doppio voto passa solo se proviene da grandi metropoli, ma penso che vuoi parlare di #COVID19 io partirei da questo studio della CDC https://t.co/r06T6zUbUL indica R0 >5 (95%, 3,8-8,9) e fece escamare a #Fauci
@Ziggityzola @ItsThatBriGuy @notdred @JimPethokoukis Bud, again, you clearly do not understand the concept of R0, or it seems most of the concepts your arguing about. There's detail here, to explain it from the baseline....maybe spend some time with this..
@Nikkolette4 A few posts about R0 here: https://t.co/uaCnLNDZQ0
@Nikkolette4 R0 higher than estimated, est of R0 is 4.5 or so. "Here, we estimated the growth rate of the early outbreak in Wuhan to be 0.29 per day (a doubling time of 2.4 days), and the reproductive number, R0, to be between 4.7 to 6.6 (CI: 2.8 to 11.3)
@apsmunro @oi_tillymint @d_spiegel US CDC modelling also confirms the Chinese one. 'We found R0 is likely to be 5.7 given our current state of knowledge, with a broad 95% CI (3.8–8.9).' In short, do not mess around with this virus at all. https://t.co/YObe