Clarity is of paramount importance here.
First, this isn't from WHO; it 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. 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 "R0 is at least 2.6". 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.
You contended all night the likelihood of contracting it was very law, and low.
Third, and this is a technical but important detail, PC isn't R0. R0 is downstream from PC but there is a feedback loop. What they're saying is that for every person contracting coronavirus, they will infect 2.8 newbies (on avg). Btw, seasonal influenza has a R0 of 1.28. The implication is this will spread like wildfire...based on the settled science of climate change. Uh huh.
Fourth, PC IS low in this case AT THIS TME: empirically, at this stage of this saga, if we have between 1,000-4,000 confirmed cases out of 50 million or so quarantined people, then PC is 8 per 100,000 people.
Even at a constant R0 value of 1.5 you are 100% certain to be exposed eventually.
And by a simple reading of the news it’s easy to discern it is much higher. Not to mention the extent of China’s official reaction, which you have previously dismissed as an effort to soften the impact of poor economic performance.
Actions which significantly dull performance further.
I’m trying to discern whether you are rhetorically boxed in with previous, less than thoughtful statements, or if you have an agenda of some sort.
Or, if you know something nobody else does.
I’ll figure that out eventually.
Good post except one of them is an ND and epidemiologist.