First, this is from "WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, J-IDEA, Imperial College London, UK... This is an extended version of an analysis previously shared with WHO, governments and academic networks between 22/1/20 - 24/1/20. "
In other words, this is from an academic group that collaborates with WHO, not WHO. Further, if you check out the bona fides of the signatories, they are primarily mathematicians and statisticians, not medical doctors. Indeed, as I'll show shortly, this paper is pure math/data science/simulations.
Secondarily, the report does not say every person in China with the contravirus will infect 2.6 newbies. Quoting directly from the PDF:
We estimate that, on average, each case infected 2.6 (uncertainty range: 1.5-3.5) other people up to 18th January 2020, based on an analysis combining our past estimates of the size of the outbreak in Wuhan with computational modelling of potential epidemic trajectories.
Thus, this is a mathematical ESTIMATE based on PRIOR ESTIMATES and COMPUTATIONAL MODELING. Now, there is always a place for math and statistics. But the methods they're employing here are in-line with what's brandished by "climate change scientists." Color me skeptical.
But EVEN IF we agree with their methods and math, the data in their table show that their estimated R0 actually ranges from 0.9 to 3.5 depending upon there being 1000 or 4000 cases by Jan 18. That is a LOT of variation.
In fact, often times in the midst of a pandemic, R0 can't be directly calculated. It has to be estimated, and those estimates (as seen above) are subject to the same errors that infect mankind whenever panic or insouciance sets in.
Of course we should not ignore this situation. It's worth monitoring and taking some action like protecting the citizens of America. But we shouldn't act like these guys...
