Well here it is.
R0 for SARS-CoV-2 estimated at between 4.7 and 11, taking into consideration superspreading.
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
R0 for SARS-CoV-2 estimated at between 4.7 and 11, taking into consideration superspreading.
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
Sanche way back said 2.5 to 3.5 but probably double when considering asymptomatics.
I said not to bother debating with droplet people ...
https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1306931248221347840
To note, higher numbers not new. Estimates of R0 for SARS-CoV-2 in the early days. Depends on how calc'd. 
From the original article:
Left: cases grow faster once superspreading starts.
Right: what percentage of spread is attributable to superspreading. Zero until it starts, then high, settling down at about 80% (note: that's what articles have said).
Left: cases grow faster once superspreading starts.
Right: what percentage of spread is attributable to superspreading. Zero until it starts, then high, settling down at about 80% (note: that's what articles have said).
To note, R0 from contact tracing different from R0 calculated from physical things like virus shedding.
In fig, contact tracing says R0=2, but everything else 4 and up (that's using Ebola-like parameters).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
In fig, contact tracing says R0=2, but everything else 4 and up (that's using Ebola-like parameters).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Oh look. Another. R0=12.
"A computation of R_e(t) is provided using mean parameters. The point estimate of the basic reproduction number is approximately 12."
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
"A computation of R_e(t) is provided using mean parameters. The point estimate of the basic reproduction number is approximately 12."
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
