| John2290 said: Yeah, It's not possible too be that infectious at near r6 and have been spreading since January which is confirmed now. It doesn't take a mathematician to make that assesment at a glance, the majority of us would be infected by the time lockdown started. r3 might even be too high, we can beat this and keep on top of it with social distancing, it's not as bad as thought. As long as there is no majour mutations too soon. |
I'm kinda surprised as well the CDC put this out.
A closer look at the data they used to get to that R0 5.7 estimate
We collected publicly available reports of 140 confirmed COVID-19 cases (mostly outside Hubei Province). These reports were published by the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and provincial health commissions; accession dates were January 15–30, 2020 (Appendix 1 Table 1). Many of the individual reports were also published on the China CDC official website
How many red flags can you spot in that paragraph.....
Small sample size, early tests that weren't all that reliable, when you start testing you first find more cases since you're catching up, especially if trying to deny or downplay before then.
That fastest observed doubling rate in reported deaths of 4.6 days in Russia (170 deaths April 14th, 361 deaths April 19th) which matches the R0 of 2.2, is far more reliable than these 140 reported cases. The doubling rate for reported deaths yesterday was 6 days in Russia, slowing down now as well.
Imo, R0 of 5.7, not a chance.
