Thread by @MNUpNorthLakeG1

ALERT UPDATE! Mn Dept Health manipulating R(0) in NEW MODEL to get “outcome” they want. Will claim
R>3, should be near 1 (see subtweets).

Look for MDH claiming on today’s call that R(0) has *increased*-an impossibility with shelter in place.

@thauserkstp @AlphaNewsMN @SKihne

https://twitter.com/MNUpNorthLakeG1/status/1259894616075186177

This graph shows MN R number over time. Even with confidence interval, MN is well below 2. rt.live/share/us/MN?r=…

*R(t) is just R(0) over time

Also, R(0) should be different for cities v. rural vs. nursing homes - MDH using one R(0) for all MN is not supported by science.

Peer reviewed article (posted by CDC) warns that R(0) can be “easily misrepresented, misinterpreted and misapplied.” NO ONE is using a R(0)>2 when stay at home is in place. Details in subtweets.

wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/25…

R(0) pronounced R(naught), aka transmission/reproduction rate, is the number of people each infected person will infect. Typical unmitigated estimates range from 1.4-2.6. BUT, staying at home drops R(0) below 1.

Germany was below 1 with mitigation, and recently after reopening it increased to 1.1.

rki.de/DE/Content/Inf…
thelocal.de/20200510/rise-…

In China *during* outbreak, R(0) was between 1.4-2.5. A peer reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated it at 2.2.

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

WHO models R(0) between 1.4-2.5 (unmitigated)

who.int/news-room/deta…

Imperial College (which overestimated deaths 10x) modelled R(0) between 2-2.6.

imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial…

Sweden was a R(0) of 2.6 with minimal mitigation.

imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial…

MDH can change R(0) to get the OUTCOME they want.