The R(0) number

amandstu · 10-05-2020 6:21pm #1

According to this story it is going up again in Germany (1.1)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52604676

How do they know this?Can they track that number in (roughly) real time?

What delay is they in reporting this figure,I wonder?

mikhail · 11-05-2020 3:04pm

amandstu wrote: »

How do they know this?Can they track that number in (roughly) real time?

What delay is they in reporting this figure,I wonder?

They fit a curve to the recent daily positive tests. For example, if the last ten* days had show exactly the same number of cases each day, the model would show R = 1.

*I am plucking that number of days from thin air. I don't know how many days' data they use. If you use more days, you get a more precise fit, but if you use fewer days you get a more responsive fit. It's a trade off.

amandstu · 11-05-2020 4:37pm

mikhail wrote: »

They fit a curve to the recent daily positive tests. For example, if the last ten* days had show exactly the same number of cases each day, the model would show R = 1.

*I am plucking that number of days from thin air. I don't know how many days' data they use. If you use more days, you get a more precise fit, but if you use fewer days you get a more responsive fit. It's a trade off.

I was just aurprised at how quickly they seemed to notice an uptick in the nunber .It seems like only a coupke of days since restrictions were eased in Germany.

Maybe,as you say they are using just a few days and so that number may need to be treated with caution for now
..

downcow · 01-06-2020 10:56am

I am more and more convinced that the R(0) number is next to nonsense.

I have tried to research how it is worked out and there seems to be nothing out there to tell us. The best I can find is that Scotland has a 'big computer' that does it.
It seems it's quite related to deaths and therefore must be three weeks old.

Can anyone shed some light on how this number is worked out. All the major news media have tried including the BBC and they just simply waffle

DebDynamite · 01-06-2020 11:02am

Can someone please tell me, does the R number mean the amount of people each person (healthy, with no virus) is coming into contact with on avenge, or does it only refer to the amount of person to person transmission of the virus?

For example, say we were only getting about 5 cases per day, so people were out socialising more and we were back to what we were like in early March, could the R rate be at 4 or 5, but infections still stay low. Is the R rate irrelevant if cases are low, and staying low?

mickdw · 01-06-2020 11:06am

Surely they just look at models that take into account distancing etc and see how the cases rise day on day and allow for a percentage undetected cases alzo w8lithin the model. It should tie in also with what they see from contact tracing.
As far as i know R 0 is a constant which refers to transmission rate within a community that are not resistant and not acting to prevent spread. They should be using another term for the reducing reproductive rate.

downcow · 01-06-2020 11:13am

mickdw wrote: »

Surely they just look at models that take into account distancing etc and see how the cases rise day on day and allow for a percentage undetected cases alzo w8lithin the model. It should tie in also with what they see from contact tracing.
As far as i know R 0 is a constant which refers to transmission rate within a community that are not resistant and not acting to prevent spread. They should be using another term for the reducing reproductive rate.

Surely if the figure has credibility there is a clear calculation that shows us how it is worked out. What you are saying is basically what the BBC are saying which doesn't really mean anything to me

Hmmzis · 01-06-2020 12:24pm

Ro is the default rate of spread between infected and naïve hosts if no behaviour adjustments are made.

Re is the effective rate of spread for same, but takes into account the actual situation where coutermeasures have been applied.

Then there is also the K number, that describes the uniformity of the spreading patterns. For the flu and most other respiratory viruses the K is high, for SARS like viruses it's very low (they seem to rely on super spreading events/conditions).

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all

mickdw · 01-06-2020 2:22pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Ro is the default rate of spread between infected and naïve hosts if no behaviour adjustments are made.

Re is the effective rate of spread for same, but takes into account the actual situation where coutermeasures have been applied.

Then there is also the K number, that describes the uniformity of the spreading patterns. For the flu and most other respiratory viruses the K is high, for SARS like viruses it's very low (they seem to rely on super spreading events/conditions).

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all

But they all keep referring to Ro and it reducing which is wrong.

downcow · 01-06-2020 5:18pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Ro is the default rate of spread between infected and naïve hosts if no behaviour adjustments are made.

Re is the effective rate of spread for same, but takes into account the actual situation where coutermeasures have been applied.

Then there is also the K number, that describes the uniformity of the spreading patterns. For the flu and most other respiratory viruses the K is high, for SARS like viruses it's very low (they seem to rely on super spreading events/conditions).

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all

Thanks for that. A really interesting read.
Still zero on how R number is established

Dravokivich · 01-06-2020 5:26pm

I thought it was a reproductive rate per case?

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 5:35pm

I'm sure they use calculus. The 2nd derivative.

amandstu · 01-06-2020 5:38pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

I thought it was a reproductive rate per case?

That's right.

The methodology of giving it a value may be intricate (for all I know) -and dynamic .But I doubt it is rocket science.

It seems many countries are attaching great importance to it.

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 5:48pm

Anyone know what was the highest R0 calculated? This can determine the percentage of population needed to be immune for herd protection.

ExMachina1000 · 01-06-2020 5:53pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Anyone know what was the highest R0 calculated? This can determine the percentage of population needed to be immune for herd protection.

I thought we were all laughing at boris Johnson for his thoughts on herd immunity? Its a thing now?

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 5:56pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I thought we were all laughing at boris Johnson for his thoughts on herd immunity? Its a thing now?

I'm thinking in regard to vaccine.

R0 predicts the extent of immunization that a population requires if herd immunity is to be achieved, the spread of the infection limited, and the population protected against future infection. To prevent sustained spread of the infection the proportion of the population that has to be immunized (Pi) has to be greater than 1 − 1/R0.

For example, if R0 = 2, immunization needs to be achieved in 50% of the population. However, if R0 = 5 the proportion rises steeply, to 80%. Beyond that the rise is less steep; an increase in R0 to 10 increases the need for immunization to 90%. Measles has an R0 greater than 10, which is why immunization of a large proportion of the population is so important in preventing the disease.

amandstu · 01-06-2020 5:56pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Anyone know what was the highest R0 calculated? This can determine the percentage of population needed to be immune for herd protection.

Don't know that (or of that relationship) but 60% is frequently mentioned.
This seems unattainable in any convenient timeframe.

There was a story today that the virus may have become less virulent in Italy but the story is behind an adblocker barrier so I can't read it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8376105/Is-Covid-19-really-potent.html

amandstu · 01-06-2020 5:58pm

YFlyer wrote: »

I'm thinking in regard to vaccine.

Heard that around 50% won't even take the vaccine if available (of course herd immunity is "a thing" ..facts of life and all that)

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 6:01pm

amandstu wrote: »

Heard that around 50% won't even take the vaccine if available (of course herd immunity is "a thing" ..facts of life and all that)

I doubt up to 50% won't take the vaccine. Anyway if true an R0 of 2 or less would handle those numbers.

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 6:03pm

amandstu wrote: »

Don't know that (or of that relationship) but 60% is frequently mentioned.
This seems unattainable in any convenient timeframe.

There was a story today that the virus may have become less virulent in Ital but the story is behind an adblocker barrier so I can't read it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8376105/Is-Covid-19-really-potent.html

That would give an R0 of over 2.

amandstu · 01-06-2020 6:04pm

YFlyer wrote: »

I doubt up to 50% won't take the vaccine. Anyway if true an R0 of 2 or less would handle those numbers.

How so ? R(0)=2 means fast exponential growth

amandstu · 01-06-2020 6:07pm

Are we getting confused between a "natural"R(0)number and a mitigated one?

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 6:37pm

amandstu wrote: »

How so ? R(0)=2 means fast exponential growth

I'm reference from here

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-will-it-be-over-an-introduction-to-viral-reproduction-numbers-r0-and-re/

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 6:39pm

amandstu wrote: »

Are we getting confused between a "natural"R(0)number and a mitigated one?

Values now in each region or country looks like they're the different mitigated R0 number.

For population or herd immunity the natural R0 would be required.

amandstu · 01-06-2020 7:00pm

YFlyer wrote: »

I doubt up to 50% won't take the vaccine. Anyway if true an R0 of 2 or less would handle those numbers.

Thanks for the article .I get you now. Yes the R(0) and the R(e) numbers seem to be misused on the TV these days.

Ideally the R(0) number never changes but it is spoken of as changing from week to week , where it should really be referred to as the R(e) or the R(t)
number

Yes ,if the public will not take the vaccine in large enough numbers then those already having had the illness will count as "already vaccinated" and so boost the numbers.

YFlyer · 01-06-2020 7:20pm

Yes ,if the public will not take the vaccine in large enough numbers then those already having had the illness will count as "already vaccinated" and so boost the numbers.[/quote]

Unfortunately those percentages will unlikely protect the population as you could have significant size clusters that would either vaccinate or not vaccinate.

downcow · 01-06-2020 10:18pm

Am I assuming you are all in same position as me ie no clue where this mysterious daily changing r number comes from or how it is calculated?

4068ac1elhodqr · 01-06-2020 10:31pm

Would it be safe to assume the R number might increase for Dublin next week, after 1,000+ covidiots today spent more than 15mins together, in close proximity, on a walkabout with a majority not even wearing facemasks properly?

Polar101 · 01-06-2020 10:35pm

downcow wrote: »

Am I assuming you are all in same position as me ie no clue where this mysterious daily changing r number comes from or how it is calculated?

In Germany it's the number of cases today compared to what is was 4 days earlier.

I read it on page 6 of this publication:

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-05-10-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Happy to be corrected/re-educated, as I'm not mathematically gifted. Assuming other countries use similar methods.

downcow · 02-06-2020 4:37am

Polar101 wrote: »

In Germany it's the number of cases today compared to what is was 4 days earlier.

I read it on page 6 of this publication:

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-05-10-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Happy to be corrected/re-educated, as I'm not mathematically gifted. Assuming other countries use similar methods.

Great article.

It appears it the number is quite old ie based on displayed symptoms (6-14 days after infection) and in addition the last 3 days are disregarded, so it takes no account of last 9 days and is only to be trusted 17 days later.
Big brother doesn’t tell us this. The number should also surely be modified every day for 17 days - they are not telling us this either.
Clearly we are being treated like mushrooms. But i wonder how has the info. Does government even know.

Hmmzis · 02-06-2020 10:45am

Roselyn Nutritious Dwarf wrote: »

Would it be safe to assume the R number might increase for Dublin next week, after 1,000+ covidiots today spent more than 15mins together, in close proximity, on a walkabout with a majority not even wearing facemasks properly?

Unfortunately, anything else would be nothing short of miraculous.

DevilsHaircut · 02-06-2020 10:06pm

amandstu wrote: »

Are we getting confused between a "natural"R(0)number and a mitigated one?

Exactly, R(0) = unmitigated spread (no measures) in naive (never infected) population.

It is very high in Ireland - between 4 and 5 according to Tony Holohan/Philip Nolan.

bb1234567 · 02-06-2020 10:24pm

Roselyn Nutritious Dwarf wrote: »

Would it be safe to assume the R number might increase for Dublin next week, after 1,000+ covidiots today spent more than 15mins together, in close proximity, on a walkabout with a majority not even wearing facemasks properly?

It just increases the likelihood. Given how few cases there are nationwide it is actually very likely that there were anyone with COVID at the march. But cases will increase as social distancing is not being adhered to nationwide and there are young people have parties and meet ups in groups of dozens , big groups at beaches and parks, etc. That will have more of an impact than the march

4068ac1elhodqr · 02-06-2020 10:42pm

bb1234567 wrote: »

It just increases the likelihood. Given how few cases there are nationwide it is actually very likely that there were anyone with COVID at the march. But cases will increase as social distancing is not being adhered to nationwide and there are young people have parties and meet ups in groups of dozens , big groups at beaches and parks, etc. That will have more of an impact than the march

Problem is, this silly feckless march will now lead to more (very small in comparision) sized groups seeking to meet up and seek premature normalisation, all while still being under Phase 1.

You can't have one rule for some, and another rule for others.

Btw, more of these large crowds (walking/standing in close proximity for longer than 15mins, shouting, and mostly without masks...) Will be occuring again this Saturday in multiple locations.

No one in authority (outside of health professionals) has spoken out against the previous one, or plans for next ones, thus suggests the lockdown is suddenly over for everyone.
May as well book the Coronas to play at Croke Park, if there's thousands out again on Saturday for their teenage insta-likes again.

amandstu · 03-06-2020 12:11am

DevilsHaircut wrote: »

Exactly, R(0) = unmitigated spread (no measures) in naive (never infected) population.

It is very high in Ireland - between 4 and 5 according to Tony Holohan/Philip Nolan.

Is there much difference in this R(0) rate across different countries then?

From the way you put it ,the R(0) in, say Italy or Iran might be fairly different from that in Ireland.

As it is presumably the same virus it seems that there may be different types of populations in different regions of the globe.

03-06-2020 5:59am

amandstu wrote: »

Is there much difference in this R(0) rate across different countries then?

From the way you put it ,the R(0) in, say Italy or Iran might be fairly different from that in Ireland.

As it is presumably the same virus it seems that there may be different types of populations in different regions of the globe.

The R(0) should be similar for most populations if we behave in the same manner. In reality, different societies have different norms in terms of social contact and etiquette therefore real rates will vary. The R(0) of 4-5 for Ireland in early March is likely an overestimate however. We do not know how many cases arrived into the country late feb and into March, therefore do not know the seed rate. Big difference in R(0) if it spread from 100 or 200 seed cases

downcow · 03-06-2020 7:29am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The R(0) should be similar for most populations if we behave in the same manner. In reality, different societies have different norms in terms of social contact and etiquette therefore real rates will vary. The R(0) of 4-5 for Ireland in early March is likely an overestimate however. We do not know how many cases arrived into the country late feb and into March, therefore do not know the seed rate. Big difference in R(0) if it spread from 100 or 200 seed cases

I am sorry to keep harping on about this, but there is continuing use of the R number here and on media as if someone somewhere has a rational understanding on how it is calculated. I have yet to hear a clear explanation or calculation. Why is it a secret or mystery?

yosemitesam1 · 03-06-2020 9:58am

downcow wrote: »

I am sorry to keep harping on about this, but there is continuing use of the R number here and on media as if someone somewhere has a rational understanding on how it is calculated. I have yet to hear a clear explanation or calculation. Why is it a secret or mystery?

It's pure guesswork based on incomplete data that is not representative of the population as a whole and as a result is never going to be accurate no matter how many different ways they try to model it.
Estimating the r0 isn't a decision making tool for active use during a pandemic, it's a theoretical observation that can be used to try and compare different diseases outside of an outbreak

quokula · 03-06-2020 11:10am

downcow wrote: »

I am sorry to keep harping on about this, but there is continuing use of the R number here and on media as if someone somewhere has a rational understanding on how it is calculated. I have yet to hear a clear explanation or calculation. Why is it a secret or mystery?

Here's a document on calculating R0

https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-12-147

And here's a critique of the UK government's calculation early in the pandemic, with some of the maths behind their calculation of R0

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20052340v1.full.pdf

It's not a secret or mystery, nor is it pure guesswork. It's just the result of a lot of painstaking mathematical modelling that can't be turned into an easy quote for someone to put in a news report. Good luck turning this into a headline:

linearity of log(deaths) is clear in the range 16 – 31 March. A linear fit has Adjusted R2 = 0.992, and the coefficient of growth r = 0.224 with s.e. = 0.005. Adaptive M-H sampling passed the Raftery, Geweke, and Heidelberger tests for convergence. Posterior estimates of the transmission parameters, scaled by population N = 66 million, are b1*N = 0.735 with 90% credible interval (0.576, 0.826) whilst b2*N = 1.112 (0.055 , 3.335) and b3*N = 1.015 (0.052 , 3.071). R0 is estimated as 5.81 with 90%CI (5.08 , 6.98).

You've got a lot of data points, such as how many people test positive each day, how many people enter and leave hospital, the level of testing coverage, the number of contacts found per case in contact tracing.

You've got also got a lot of data missing, like how many people have it that haven't been tested, or haven't shown symptoms yet but will. You may also have different characteristics in different settings like spread in hospitals vs in the community.

From this, data scientists can make a best estimate of the R value. Because the data is incomplete they usually have a range that they have a high confidence in, that's why you often hear figures like "0.7 - 0.9" which is as precise as they can get.

downcow · 03-06-2020 8:13pm

quokula wrote: »

Here's a document on calculating R0

https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-12-147

And here's a critique of the UK government's calculation early in the pandemic, with some of the maths behind their calculation of R0

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20052340v1.full.pdf

It's not a secret or mystery, nor is it pure guesswork. It's just the result of a lot of painstaking mathematical modelling that can't be turned into an easy quote for someone to put in a news report. Good luck turning this into a headline:

You've got a lot of data points, such as how many people test positive each day, how many people enter and leave hospital, the level of testing coverage, the number of contacts found per case in contact tracing.

You've got also got a lot of data missing, like how many people have it that haven't been tested, or haven't shown symptoms yet but will. You may also have different characteristics in different settings like spread in hospitals vs in the community.

From this, data scientists can make a best estimate of the R value. Because the data is incomplete they usually have a range that they have a high confidence in, that's why you often hear figures like "0.7 - 0.9" which is as precise as they can get.

Thanks for all the info, but I am afraid I still think it is a total nonsense.
Without even getting into all the crazy stats outlined in those articles, not to mention the very important stats not available, to suggest an R number for the community, and not break it down for different settings makes zero sense.
I don't know about ROI but in Northern Ireland it was revealed the other day that over 50% of the covid deaths took place within the care home population.
The care home population in Northern Ireland makes up 1.2% of the general population.
So we have a situation where 50% of the deaths will occur within 1.2% of the population and the authorities want to ignore that and roll this figure over everyone. I don't have the stats for the percentage of deaths which took place within the hospital environment but I think it will also be fairly stark.

I know a few people who have had Covid and I do not know one single person for whom it did not emanate from a care home or hospital. I have even had it myself brought home by my wife who is a nurse.

It is a farcical situation for governments to quote general community R number in these circumstances.
We have a situation where the real R number (whatever that is) amongst school age children, is to all intent and purpose, zero, and yet their return to contact is being governed by what is happening in care homes.

millb · 04-06-2020 10:33am

downcow wrote: »

Thanks for all the info, but I am afraid I still think it is a total nonsense.
Without even getting into all the crazy stats outlined in those articles, not to mention the very important stats not available, to suggest an R number for the community, and not break it down for different settings makes zero sense.
I don't know about ROI but in Northern Ireland it was revealed the other day that over 50% of the covid deaths took place within the care home population.
The care home population in Northern Ireland makes up 1.2% of the general population.
So we have a situation where 50% of the deaths will occur within 1.2% of the population and the authorities want to ignore that and roll this figure over everyone. I don't have the stats for the percentage of deaths which took place within the hospital environment but I think it will also be fairly stark.

I know a few people who have had Covid and I do not know one single person for whom it did not emanate from a care home or hospital. I have even had it myself brought home by my wife who is a nurse.

It is a farcical situation for governments to quote general community R number in these circumstances.
We have a situation where the real R number (whatever that is) amongst school age children, is to all intent and purpose, zero, and yet their return to contact is being governed by what is happening in care homes.

Good point I think folks need to find out the following for the daily new cases:

# from an existing Healthcare or Care-Home Cluster
# from an existing Factory / Retail / Site (nonHelath care centre) cluster
# from a residential / DP or similar setting
# from close family
# from random community transfer (inc unknown)
# from recently arrived persons

these last 2 sources are the real concerns and testing should be focused there..

04-06-2020 10:48am

The real R(0) is the average number of people that those who currently have the virus go on to infect. As simple as that, no magic, voodoo, woo, or anything else. The trouble is, it is impossible to accurately get all the information required to feed into that simple calculation. That's why epidemiologists employ mathematical models to take the information we do know to give an estimate of the R(0), but this will only ever be as good as the data fed into the model.

downcow · 04-06-2020 12:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The real R(0) is the average number of people that those who currently have the virus go on to infect. As simple as that, no magic, voodoo, woo, or anything else. The trouble is, it is impossible to accurately get all the information required to feed into that simple calculation. That's why epidemiologists employ mathematical models to take the information we do know to give an estimate of the R(0), but this will only ever be as good as the data fed into the model.

Agreed.
That leaves us with two possibilities
1)it is a number that does not change an has no relationship to lockdown, behaviour, etc
or
2)It is affected by above and therefore is dramatically different in different settings eh care homes and young people partying on a beach. If this is the case then we deserve to be told. Young people need need people speaking out for them. They are clearly very little at risk from covid but are highly at risk from emotional and mental health.
we need to get real and honest about this as a society

millb · 04-06-2020 12:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The real R(0) is the average number of people that those who currently have the virus go on to infect. As simple as that, no magic, voodoo, woo, or anything else. The trouble is, it is impossible to accurately get all the information required to feed into that simple calculation. That's why epidemiologists employ mathematical models to take the information we do know to give an estimate of the R(0), but this will only ever be as good as the data fed into the model.

The reality is that by good contact tracing & testing you can estimate many R(0) or R(e) values for specific populations / cohorts. Especially at this stage, one of these model operators could give R values (samples or ranges) for say a "meat factory" or "nursing home" in April or May. But that would be too much information to share with the stupid public / media / non-experts etc etc

millb · 04-06-2020 12:37pm

millb wrote: »

The reality is that by good contact tracing & testing you can estimate many R(0) or R(e) values for specific populations / cohorts. Especially at this stage, one of these model operators could give R values (samples or ranges) for say a "meat factory" or "nursing home" in April or May. But that would be too much information to share with the stupid public / media / non-experts etc etc

If R was done for the general public who have isolated now it will be 0 or thereabouts.

ShineOn7 · 10-06-2020 3:12pm

Numbers, and therefore the R0, seriously on the rise again in Arizona

That's now Arizona, Singapore, Dubai and elsewhere where the numbers rose again sharply when things re-opened. And yet many Irish want the phases rushed up

We should learn from the mistakes of other countries and American states. Not repeat them

https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-calls-emergency-plan-covid-010249888.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYm9hcmRzLmllL3ZidWxsZXRpbi9zaG93dGhyZWFkLnBocD9wPTExMzY5MTU5Ng&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK3J2EZavb74LE5HFVoCX8k9W7f0xX7dkpdkcPrOF9SafrJMjhTjC5xMLmwddW4-Te9mHgjaxXGIBMLH6rVrJ-J5BToTDQCFJbMx0WDdEOGQDNcjW3PEMeRr2zk0k08kuuIgy5aMpPCgp2tSzBLADjefwZg12mWyzPne8hYGojyZ

Arizona again told hospitals to activate the coronavirus emergency plans after cases spiked following reopening, turning it into a U.S. virus hotspot along with neighboring Southwest states.

The state's stay-at-home order ended on May 15, and its cases have increased 115 percent since then, leading a former state health chief to warn Arizona may need new social distancing measures or field hospitals.
State health director Cara Christ on Saturday told hospitals to "fully activate" emergency plans - a message she last sent on March 25 - after Arizona's largest medical network Banner Health warned it was reaching its capacity in intensive care unit beds.

"Since May 15, ventilated COVID-19 patients have quadrupled," Banner Health tweeted on Monday, adding it had hit capacity for some patients needing cardiac and respiratory care.

The alert came after Arizona, New Mexico and Utah each posted rises of 40% or higher in new cases for the week ended June 7 compared with the prior seven days, joining hotpots in the South like Florida and Arkansas, according to a Reuters analysis.

micks_address · 10-06-2020 3:14pm

In terms of the US you'd probably need to think about each state being a country. I don't think they peaked at all outside of new york.

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Numbers, and therefore the R0, seriously on the rise again in Arizona

That's now Arizona, Singapore, Dubai and elsewhere where the numbers rose again sharply when things re-opened. And yet many Irish want the phases rushed up

We should learn from the mistakes of other countries and American states. Not repeat them

https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-calls-emergency-plan-covid-010249888.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYm9hcmRzLmllL3ZidWxsZXRpbi9zaG93dGhyZWFkLnBocD9wPTExMzY5MTU5Ng&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK3J2EZavb74LE5HFVoCX8k9W7f0xX7dkpdkcPrOF9SafrJMjhTjC5xMLmwddW4-Te9mHgjaxXGIBMLH6rVrJ-J5BToTDQCFJbMx0WDdEOGQDNcjW3PEMeRr2zk0k08kuuIgy5aMpPCgp2tSzBLADjefwZg12mWyzPne8hYGojyZ

Hmmzis · 10-06-2020 4:09pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Numbers, and therefore the R0, seriously on the rise again in Arizona

That's now Arizona, Singapore, Dubai and elsewhere where the numbers rose again sharply when things re-opened. And yet many Irish want the phases rushed up

We should learn from the mistakes of other countries and American states. Not repeat them

https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-calls-emergency-plan-covid-010249888.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYm9hcmRzLmllL3ZidWxsZXRpbi9zaG93dGhyZWFkLnBocD9wPTExMzY5MTU5Ng&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK3J2EZavb74LE5HFVoCX8k9W7f0xX7dkpdkcPrOF9SafrJMjhTjC5xMLmwddW4-Te9mHgjaxXGIBMLH6rVrJ-J5BToTDQCFJbMx0WDdEOGQDNcjW3PEMeRr2zk0k08kuuIgy5aMpPCgp2tSzBLADjefwZg12mWyzPne8hYGojyZ

While bad news for the people getting sick, it's good news for vaccine developers, they now have a prime ground for their phase III trials.

JP Liz V1 · 12-06-2020 10:44pm

It is still low here yes?

ShineOn7 · 12-06-2020 11:17pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

It is still low here yes?

It's estimated to be 0.4 to 0.8

Anything below 1 = good

Anything above 1 - bad

micks_address · 12-06-2020 11:19pm

ShineOn7 wrote: »

It's estimated to be 0.4 to 0.8

Anything below 1 = good

Anything above 1 - bad

When do we stop having new cases?

The R(0) number

Comments