We've updated our transmissibility assessment for #nCoV2019! R_0 estimates (based off of publicly reported confirmed cases through 1/26/20 & subject to change) remain ~stable, now ranging from 2.0 to 3.1.
Pre-print will be updated soon: ssrn.com/abstract=35246…
See thread below.
Pre-print will be updated soon: ssrn.com/abstract=35246…
See thread below.
On January 24, this study [thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lanc…] provided onset data for the first 41 cases & back-dated the start of the outbreak to December 1 (instead of December 8, as we'd thought before due to the WHO [who.int/csr/don/12-jan…]). Our estimates now include these data.
Because of the ~1 day delay in reporting, we were able to incorporate these new data starting with our estimates on January 23 onward. There was an initial dip (though still within initial bounds) in our R_0 range, likely due to back-dating, on January 23. It's since stabilized.
Part of the challenge associated with this outbreak is rapid reporting in recent days. Some of this is due to actual new cases and some of it is playing "catch up". Our modeled curve attempts to account for that, which is why it isn't a precise match to the reported curve.
Please note that this is pretty typical with novel diseases that we're trying to learn how to diagnose after an outbreak of it has already begun. As just one example, my colleagues and I saw this "reverse-L-shaped curve" of reported cases with #Zika too [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…].
I'd also urge readers to remember that R_0 is merely a measure of *potential* transmissibility. I tweeted about what this means and why it's relevant last night (linked below). An R_0 > 1 means we should plan and prepare but does *not* by default mean that we should panic.
In the meanwhile, our findings continue to track against those presented by the @WHO as well as independent studies conducted by others, including @C_Althaus and @MRC_Outbreak (both of which can be found appended to the tweet thread with our original results from Thursday).
Nevertheless, fluctuations are likely, so we plan to continue refreshing our results intermittently. As before however, this preliminary work is a *pre-print* and has not yet undergone peer review. All caveats that I outlined in Thursday’s thread (below) remain true. More soon.
