@ItBegins2012 @MeghanMcCain Good luck with a virus as infectious as this one. https://t.co/gVhvfStvjy
@MrBenWasTheBest The World Health Organisation constantly updates the R value for this (still) new virus - & it currently stands at 5.7. References attached to the wikipedia article for COVID. https://t.co/CuZp70IfUh https://t.co/eGP2vS0A0l
@ClarkeMicah @john_donoghue These two articles calculate the time from infection to death to be 16 - 20 days. This is evidence that supports that the soft lockdown on 16 March and/or the hard lockdown could have resulted in the Apr 8 peak. https://t.co/LB
@ClarkeMicah @john_donoghue Here are two research papers that studied the duration from infection to death. One yeilded ~16 days, the ther ~20 days. https://t.co/LBQEB2uJM0 https://t.co/LFp5lpPyOY
@ClarkeMicah Also this research. Time from: infection to symptoms: 4.2 days symptoms to death: 16.1 days infection to death = 20.3 days 20 days prior to 8 Apr is in the week after the 16 Mar, when social distancing & work from home was strongly urged a
RT @marco4357: El #COVID19 es un virus muy contagioso. El Ro fue actualizado a ~5.7, lo que implica que una persona puede infectar a 6 más.…
RT @DrEricDing: @MarkSlifka @nytimes I had posted it in another thread. But here it is again. “R0 = 5.7, this threshold rises to 82% (i.e.,…
RT @DrEricDing: @MarkSlifka Here. “threshold for combined herd immunity needed calculated as 1 – 1/R0. at R0 = 5.7, this threshold rises to…
@ALWaYsAnTi @Gafro48 @rpham15 @_L_addi @nbcsandiego Go to Google and enter the line What is the reproductive rate of <and then the name of the virus> If you end up on Wikipedia please make sure you check the sources at the bottom for reliable scienti
RT @AmeetRKini: @nataliexdean @CT_Bergstrom Excellent piece. Also, if the R0 is 5.7 (as credibly published) instead of 2-3, then >82% have…
@DSniffing @Schtaunkhauser @rohanarezel @LeslynLewis @PeterMacKay @ErinOTooleMP @stephenharper The Corona/Covid19 numbers are problematic, and the contagion factor is undeniable. Statistically speaking the numbers don't favour it being less devastating th
@MarkSlifka @nytimes I had posted it in another thread. But here it is again. “R0 = 5.7, this threshold rises to 82% (i.e., >82% of the population has to be immune, through either vaccination or prior infection, to achieve herd immunity to stop transmis
@MarkSlifka Here. “threshold for combined herd immunity needed calculated as 1 – 1/R0. at R0 = 5.7, this threshold rises to 82% (i.e., >82% of population has to be immune, through either vaccination or prior infection, to achieve herd immunity to stop t
@StoneSculptorJN Actually it is at least twice as contagious as the flu and a little less contagious than a cold. The R0 or number of people who one person infects, of SARS-CoV2 is 5.7-5.8. For the flu it’s between 1.5 and 2.5. For the common cold, it’s 6.
@kurteichenwald Worse. R0 = 5.7. This is from enhanced contact tracing early in the first outbreak. https://t.co/yt5CNJ0mOD
RT @WHCISciStudio: Stop the spread of the Coronavirus! Further reading: Research from the CDC: https://t.co/9yNxFvjdAy COVID-19 Q&A from…
Stop the spread of the Coronavirus! Further reading: Research from the CDC: https://t.co/9yNxFvjdAy COVID-19 Q&A from WHO: https://t.co/pyIelA688B #StayHome https://t.co/pXATR2ULIf
Graphs showing US national and state #COVID19 cases moving in 7-8 day patterns, consistent with emerging research on infection (https://t.co/N0iufqFcAl). Can't be mislead by short-term dips... #StayHomeSaveLives https://t.co/5BAELpFTD5 https://t.co/FdKRY
RT @CaptainAV: #R0 is much higher than initially estimated! New estimated #R0 is 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9, with incubation period 4.2 days, ons…
@DonRodrigues8 @LarryBnDC @jacobmathews @joelockhart @realDonaldTrump Sorry but the preliminary ratings were much lower around 2.2 to 2.7. Which is still higher than the flu. The amount of studies around the contagion are easily available so you may want t
RT @marco4357: El #COVID19 es un virus muy contagioso. El Ro fue actualizado a ~5.7, lo que implica que una persona puede infectar a 6 más.…
Sans même parler des formes asymptomatiques le Cdc américain estime le R0 à 5,7. #COVID19 #reproductionNumber https://t.co/eoWwI5M9Fe
Early Release - High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 - Volume 26, Number 7—July 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC https://t.co/ufHJ2cXB4W vía @CDCgov
@RockyMountViews it depends on the R0, the number of people a sick person infects in a naive population. best guess for COVID-19's R0 is 5.7 here: https://t.co/YwfufWWKAM so (100 - 100/5.7)% = 83% of the population has to be immune before the disease dim
@lvlylen Δεν διαφωνώ για το σκέλος των αντιεμβολιαστών αλλά το πραγματικό R0 του ιού μπορεί τελικά να είναι μεγαλύτερο του 5... https://t.co/ap4EQsQL2X https://t.co/l8RGQEU108
RT @AmeetRKini: @nataliexdean @CT_Bergstrom Excellent piece. Also, if the R0 is 5.7 (as credibly published) instead of 2-3, then >82% have…
@uso5150 @MediumGrace @varsityredhead6 @AnthonyInThe805 https://t.co/xV3see4WgB What does this mean? This means that even if we assume Spanish flu in 1918 was 2.8 then this virus is slightly more than TWICE as infectious as the deadly spanish flu. How abou
@galinash @EmilBergholtz @BjorklundVictor So you mean CDC can't do math? https://t.co/kWdXJE9AQa
RT @marco4357: El #COVID19 es un virus muy contagioso. El Ro fue actualizado a ~5.7, lo que implica que una persona puede infectar a 6 más.…
El #COVID19 es un virus muy contagioso. El Ro fue actualizado a ~5.7, lo que implica que una persona puede infectar a 6 más. Sin pruebas, contact tracing y la ayuda de científicos, estamos a ciegas, solos, en lo oscuro y con la venda puesta. https://t.co
@nataliexdean @CT_Bergstrom Excellent piece. Also, if the R0 is 5.7 (as credibly published) instead of 2-3, then >82% have to be infected, which makes herd immunity a meaningless concept, because it means almost everyone has to be infected to prevent sp
@roaminbull02 Coming back around to your "a virus is a virus" comment- I remembered there is something fundamentally defining about viruses. That's the R0 number. That number directly impacts the percent of herd immunity needed for disease extinction. R0 o
@aryadoctoryet @nolanismyname @antvesp Anything which reduces Ro is helpful including facemasks if used correctly. Ro below 1 requires zero herd immunity. Before any known cases (testing) is the time when Ro is "in the wild". A study that modeled this foun
@AHickinbotham @McjulianM @simondolan So yes. It is deadlier than seasonal flu The R0 for Covid-19 is between 2.2 - 2.7. That means every person that has it, will likely pass it on to between 2 to 3 people. You can try to do the maths but in all cases it’
@docsimsim I've been trying to find how the 'magic' R0 value is calculated as temporal variable is not included. Useful ref. here ⏬, the table can be downloaded. Answer: 14 days. https://t.co/cS31EYXV9O
@BigCherry351 @GreenStonesman @VaushV Well for one we know the r naught value is extremely high. https://t.co/MMnoHp3puC
RT @jlz0z: The govt paid a woman with a northern accent (Liverpudlian?) to read out a video script saying the natural value of "R" is 3. H…
@maschwab63 @thornbill8 @NateSilver538 @CT_Bergstrom Exactly. Contract tracing is utter nonsense. It doesn’t work. Especially so since the CDC pegs R0 for this virus at 5.7. https://t.co/jDdJDJMq6g
@DominikMusiol @eee_eff @ChrispyGoons @michaeljburry Confirmation from Emerging Infectious Diseases overnight that Early Release articles are peer-reviewed. So the Sanche et al EID paper is peer-reveiwed. https://t.co/852RGVDHCs #COVID19 https://t.co/OOYA
The govt paid a woman with a northern accent (Liverpudlian?) to read out a video script saying the natural value of "R" is 3. Here is the CDC saying it's more like 5.7 "we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). " https://t.co/4SwfBWs4Cd
@JamesTGallagher Just a small note. Earlier this month a paper was released showing an R of 5.7 The earlier number of 2 appears to be a significant under-estimation, which makes sense when comparing this outbreak to something like Ebola which has an R of
@OwenEastwoodUK @carolecadwalla As you say, it doesn’t account for uneven real-world distribution networks. See this kind of analysis coming out of the CDC on actual data; https://t.co/F4Z9GkxYLx
@janon1234 @JoeySalads The R0 is between has been measure in the range of 3 to 5.7, which is the CDS current stance. Mumps floats in the same range. https://t.co/8ah3AJIvyB
@DominikMusiol @eee_eff @ChrispyGoons @michaeljburry Found it. Published in Emerging Infectious Diseases. Used Google Scholar (https://t.co/Kkp1JcYRuy) to search the authors. Note the same author line. Amended title. Full text free. https://t.co/852RGVDHCs
@45Wildwayne @Danny4denise @acodemonkey @Krissypissy_35 CDC lists COVID19 as midrange 5.7, which is extremely high: https://t.co/P44WM8VEVN Here's what R0 means: https://t.co/40Vpjt2qhC
RT @jafetcares: El 07/04 @CDCgov publicó estudio sobre la estimación del R0 del COVID-19 en China. Su estudio estima que la pandemia en Chi…
@HamiltonStrick1 CDC lists COVID19 as midrange 5.7, which is extremely high: https://t.co/P44WM8VEVN Here's what R0 means: https://t.co/40Vpjt2qhC
@Quest4Knowledg5 @officialmcafee 0.5 was the fatality rate in the article I cited. Early studies for Covid-19 estimated the R0 value as being between 1.4 and 2.5. However, a more recent study based on Wuhan data determined a median reproduction number of
@LibertyOfConsc @Channakt @CaputoStephanie @Alyssa_Milano Seasonal flu has an R0 of between 0.9 and 2.1 https://t.co/ihbshu35qu . C-19 has an R0 up to 5.7 https://t.co/EcBRaDQzUp .
Comment bien mettre un masque : https://t.co/x89FdGBiwz Pour les curieux, l'étude américaine qui évalue le R0 entre 5 et 6 : https://t.co/hejRTkDef3 Et surtout, prenez soin de vous.
RT @SynBioBeta: With an R0 of 5.7, at least 82 percent of the population needs to be immune to COVID-19 to stop its transmission through va…
@Charles68431225 @TweetForTheMany Yes, this has been discussed here when we did the initial calculations https://t.co/1NLMc7cJKu Note that the CDC raised the R0 to an average of 5.7 recently https://t.co/4SwfBWs4Cd
@Cornwell7Steve It shows that covid is deadlier than the flu and it's also significantly more contagious! CDC link for sars-cov-2 R0 (5.7): https://t.co/VQMqAblLb5
@JoeWouldSayThat @shaina_riddle17 @Biggan4Congress You are wrong. https://t.co/q0P3GMToek
@Dave46957937 @DrFinnell @GovernorTomWolf Its unlikely people wouldnt keep immunity for at least a yr, & if it doesnt vaccines wouldnt work. WHO was being misleading https://t.co/QBXvVaNrJ3 Also Tcells are part of immune response &arent included in
With an R0 of 5.7, at least 82 percent of the population needs to be immune to COVID-19 to stop its transmission through vaccination and herd immunity. https://t.co/QdDayMcGhp
@FT__Dan Well a couple of papers have actually suggested R0 of 6-7 to explain rapid spread of the virus. This has been modelled based on chinese data by a group from the Los Alamos National Laboratory https://t.co/23wpxaATXZ and europe by another group fro
@mlilleker @janeharbison12 @LBC Fair enough if they've revised it...I was going by this: https://t.co/tQzxZEZfMp
@NodeExod @le_Parisien Et les nouveaux chiffrent indiquent que c'est plutôt entre 4 et 9. https://t.co/i6jyzODmjE
@IonaItalia @razibkhan Angry? No, looking to get an answer for Dr Khan saying something that's not correct. Or does accuracy in science communication not matter? https://t.co/sFvWm8Kpgy
The podcast was posted yesterday, & recorded on Apr 10 (Good Fri) The CDC's paper on SARS-Cov2 was online Apr 7: "we estimated that the median of estimated R0 is 5.7" https://t.co/uFjuEZkxS8 SARS pandemic in 2003, the original R0 est. ~2.75. Months
@upstatefrump @RobertMCle @MazMHussain https://t.co/mmh7W70WyO This paper suggests a 5.7 Ro
@RobertoBurioni suppongo che conosca questo studio preliminare dalla #CDC https://t.co/r06T6zUbUL dove R0 senza contenimento a #Wuhan è stimato 95% 3.8-8.9, quello che ha fatto dichiarare a #Fauci "senza misure 100.000 - 240.000 se era 2.2 -2.7 si poteva i
RT @oatila: A estimativa mais recente (ainda queria mais estudos confirmando) para o começo da epidemia na China aponta que a taxa de trans…
I wonder how it will be up before it disappears. Perhaps it will accidentally fall out the window of a five story hospital.
This is the CDC website reporting a model suggesting the actual R0 of Covid-19 is 5.7. https://t.co/i6zt1FgyI4
@PacificJohn @jr_enman @gidget5326 @MeetThePress Note that the Herd immunity will only stop NEW outbreaks at the mentioned percentages. There is an 'overshoot' over that threshold, so it really is lower bound to how many would go through the illness to b
@EuphoricEuler @jr_enman @gidget5326 @MeetThePress Is there something wrong with an experiment resulting in 5.6 million dead Americans? The CDC paper is valuable information. https://t.co/IWDa9sxWqG
@ClarkeMicah Can anyone justify the ‘vanishingly small’ claim to me? Avge time from infection to death about 20 days (https://t.co/KmV482XXEj), which would suggest after 17 days you are starting to get bang into the curve and really starting to erode the
@traxus4420 and upwards revisions https://t.co/MEshHfxIvS https://t.co/ol7afAK36b
@jr_enman @PacificJohn @gidget5326 @MeetThePress Well, that goes counter to much of the evidence we see right now. This US CDC study puts the R0 Median estimate (basic reproduction number, w/o interventions) at 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). Herd immunity: @ R0 =
@parolin_ricardo @davi_kolar Mais recentemente, o CDC estimou o R0 em 5.7 (intervalo de confiança 3.8–8.9). https://t.co/Pn1VOS6Xbl
@ApprendistaT @Occio7 @SalernoSal @EnricoLetta @Quirinale @RobertoBurioni come disse @RobertoBurioni il 20 gennaio a differenza della SARS è contagiosa nelle prime fasi quando ancora è asintomatica, R0 senza contenimento era supposto 2,5 invece si è rivela
RT @dkegel: Their earlier paper: https://t.co/enus15xllZ
Their earlier paper: https://t.co/enus15xllZ
With #CDC's #R0 of 5.7 for #COVIC19 it will take 82% to achieve herd immunity (= 1 – 1/R0). @aknappjr https://t.co/Xm49E2nmVg
@JackRoth2023 @RyanMaue Contagion risk is much higher than flu. Early studies estimated R0 reproduction number at 2.2-2.7, but more recent study has R0 at 5.7 based on Wuhan data. R0 value for flu is 1.3. R0 is average number of people that will be inf
@TheAgeofShoddy @Birdyword In your own words : "median R0 is 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)" What consequences does an R0 of 3, 5. 7 or even 8.9 have? https://t.co/uSP9LvQzPv https://t.co/fyOT8WnNob
@Birdyword Do you even grasp what a "median R0 is 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)" means? https://t.co/uSP9LvQzPv https://t.co/fyOT8WnNob
@malaconotus @IanWellesz The CDC recently revised upwards the R0 of SARS-CoV-2 to ~5.7. About the same as polio - this thing is highly contagious https://t.co/4SwfBWs4Cd My own estimate (adjusting for age) from the "lab in a bottle" (The Princess Diamond
RT @vaTCFJOUy5yDG0i: 新型コロナウイルスは、なぜ爆発的な感染拡大するのでしょうか? 最新の論文ではひとりの感染者が5.7人に感染させる、と計算しています。感染者が直接感染させる平均人数を「基本再生産数Ro [アールノート]」と言います。麻しんは12、天然痘…
High Contagiousness & Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CV19 https://t.co/YEaOstxYFW unavailability of diagnostic reagents early, changes in surveillance intensity, case definitions & overwhelmed HC systems confound estimates of t
@magnus_vitus @Loominext Initial estimates [...] suggested [...] a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. [...] 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/dlsKEpuqvZ
@konstfull @lyw @henrikbranden Det är mer negativt än positivt. Mer data innan man kan vara säker på. Sverige kör på i alla fall med osäkra kort och människor som insats https://t.co/7Lnj7Pyv3h
Sanche S, Lin YT, Xu C, Romero-Severson E, Hengartner N, Ke R. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. https://t.co/V3cRPSiTvu
@cmnit @antonioripa @gianlucac1 @ngiocoli @CrossWordsCW @AurelianoStingi @ThManfredi @davidemancino1 @Doom3Gloom @IgorFobia CentreDisaseControl USA #CDC July 2020 R0 3.8-8,9 95% https://t.co/qVQD0LXQb1
RT @chikawatanabe: 科学的文献。ご参考まで ”High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2” https://t.co/lF8…
@Varun_Jhaveri @DrJankii @AndColorPockeT https://t.co/zcKogEAUfe. According to this paper the median R0 of CoV2 is 5.8 (95% CI : 3.8-8.9) so imagine the spread if there was no lockdown
😬 "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/MkyrAFf9bs
@ikedanob https://t.co/b1KdZkd0l8 "we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7" こんな値ってそもそも計測する意味があるのか疑問持ってました。R0は、感染期間中排泄するウイルス量が一定だという仮定で成り立っている理論ではないでしょうか?学生の時は習わなかったな(笑)。