Thread by @ferrisjabr

The viral thread quoted below is missing essential context and contains numerous errors. It does not reflect the latest evidence. #2019nCoV

Here is a new thread with the facts:

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1220919589623803905

The basic reproduction number (R0) is the average number of secondary infections generated by one infected person in a totally susceptible population #2019nCoV

The claim that the new coronavirus has an R0 of 3.8 is based on this paper medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

The authors of that paper emphasize the high degree of uncertainty and have already downgraded their estimate to an R0 of 2.5

https://twitter.com/JonRead15/status/1220749549318430721

The claim that "we are now faced with the most virulent virus epidemic the world has ever seen" and that the new coronavirus is 8x as infectious as SARS is completely untrue. Even if the R0 were 3.8 that would be nowhere near a record.

Here is some context w/ a range of R0s:

Moreover, R0 is not the only statistic that matters. Some diseases are extremely infectious but not very lethal; others are the inverse.

Infectiousness can change dramatically depending on the population in question and circumstances. #2019nCoV

It's estimated, for example, that control measures reduced the R0 of SARS from ~2.9 to 0.4. (This might be the source of the erroneously cited "modest" 0.49 "viral attack rate" for SARS in the viral thread)

Reference: who.int/csr/sars/en/WH…

None of this is to belittle what is happening. The outbreak in China is a genuine public health emergency.

But the essential data are still being collected and assessed. Sweeping and alarmist claims about unprecedented global threat are neither warranted nor helpful.

#2019nCoV

Following numerous critiques, the most inaccurate tweet in the original viral thread disappeared/was probably deleted without explanation or follow-up correction. For transparency and posterity, this is what it looked like.

The info in the pictured tweet is unequivocally wrong

Some people have asked why they should believe me rather than a Harvard epidemiologist.

This is not a matter of belief, nor pedigree. This is about facts, evidence, due diligence.

I have presented the facts and their sources so you can examine them for yourself.

I'd like to thank everyone who has been sharing my thread. You are helping to combat misinformation and alarmism. Some people think it is futile to try, but you are proving them wrong.

Critical thinking is a skill—a muscle. We have a collective responsibility to exercise it.

Here is one of the latest analyses of the new coronavirus, with an estimated R0 of 2.6

Remember, though: R0 is just one factor. It's still early, data are still coming in, and all the statistics are likely to keep changing
imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-inf…

https://twitter.com/maiamajumder/status/1221202356035112961

Some of the latest numbers according to People's Daily, China

https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/1221237953357340672

This is a great resource: an interactive map of confirmed novel coronavirus infections and deaths around the world, frequently updated.

Created by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering, John Hopkins University. Last update: 10PM EST Jan 25

gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashbo…

A lot of people sharing this study, which estimates an R0 of 3.3 - 5.47 for the new coronavirus

This study was published on Jan 24. It doesn't use data beyond Jan 22. And it hasn't been peer-reviewed. It does not represent a definitive consensus
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

Remember: the estimated R0 for SARS ranged from 2 to 5 depending on the context (who.int/csr/sars/en/WH…). It's entirely possible the R0 for the new coronavirus will fall within or close to that range (they are related viruses).

But R0 is not the only factor to consider

Incoming reports suggest the new coronavirus has a variable incubation period (1 to 14 days) & may be contagious pre-symptoms. That could potentially make it harder to contain than SARS.

But we simply don't yet have enough data to accurately pin down the R0 or fatality rate.

Here are some especially good recent reports:

1) Reuters reuters.com/article/us-chi…

2) Washington Post washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pac…

3) STAT News statnews.com/2020/01/26/con…

4) Foreign Policy foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/25/how…

New analysis, published Jan 26, reports avg incubation of 4.8 days and R0 of 2.9, which is consistent with earlier estimates of 2.6. Dr. @mugecevik says this is "the first detailed epidemic curve." Still working with early data, though

biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

@mugecevik From same study: "2019-nCoV may have higher pandemic risk than SARS...implemented public-health efforts have significantly decreased pandemic risk....However, more rigorous control and prevention strategies and measures [needed] to contain further spread" biorxiv.org/content/10.110…