Another R0 paper on #coronavirus comes from scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciencesš¬š§Ŗābefore sharing their R0 value, PLEASE do not engage in negative/conspiracy manner. We need to be very cautious of pre-pubs, given itās not peer reviewed yet. So letās thread lightly: 
2) (Please read first post above before continuing): The authors report an R0=4.08. They made many assumptions; and did some simulations, and still got the ~4.08 approximate value. (Article found here: medrxiv.org/content/10.110ā¦)
3) ...they also found their models suggest potentially earlier epidemic start date around Dec 1-15th fit their results the best. This is actually consistent with other previous @NEJM study that had indeed confirmed this in their figure 1: nejm.org/doi/full/10.10ā¦
4) ...Finally, the authors estimated a fatality rate of the coronavirus to be around 6.5% (deaths so far mostly from Wuhan). They also provide comparisons to SARS, and forecasting into the future (very unpredictable - donāt rely on these alone, as others have different forecasts)
5) Re-emphasizing, this studyās not peer reviewed yet, and itās odd their models show SARS mortality to be lower than the consensus ~10%. Thus, one should be skeptical of many parts of the analysis, especially for mortality forecasting.
6) Hong Kong šš° getting more confrontational with China over this outbreak:
