🚨New higher R0 from CDC reanalysis... it’s a 5.7!🚨(95% Confidence Interval: 3.8–8.9). Wowzers. This much higher #SARSCoV2 R0 value carries lot of implications for vaccines and treatments and containment measures needed. 📌Thread 🧵 #COVID19 wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26… 
2) Implications: “The R0 values we estimated have important implications for predicting the effects of pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical interventions. EG, threshold for combined vaccine efficacy & herd immunity needed for disease extinction is calculated as 1 – 1/R0. #COVID19
3) “At R0 = 2.2, this threshold is only 55%. But at 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 transmission).” #COVID19
4) “Results show that quarantine and contact tracing of symptomatic persons can be effective when the fraction of unidentified persons is low. However, when 20% of transmission is driven by unidentified infected, high levels of social distancing efforts will be needed” #COVID19
5) this highlights the importance of early and effective surveillance, contact tracing, and quarantine! ➡️ Translation: we need to now be even more vigilant than previously thought given the higher revised R0. #COVID19
7) Note that this R0 is much higher than the recent Imperial College review of published R0 of 3.87. Ergo, a 5.7 is on considerably different level of infectiousness. #COVID19 imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial…
8) clarifying that this is from a Los Alamos group’s reanalysis. But posted on CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases.
9) And to be clear, R0 is the R reproductive number at time 0 before countermeasures. So this is not the R(effective) at current time under mitigation like distancing and testing+tracing+quarantine.
