"The high R-0 values came from actual numbers, not any 'lab tests', nor did I mention any lab tests. They came from an Italian epidemiologist and statitician and the Imperial college in London. Both were from real world numbers that were coming in, nothing to do with labs."
Well, my bad for saying that it was derived in a lab.
My point is that they were empirically observed in some kind of clinical setting which underscored their veracity.
But that is a sideshow from the anomalous situation wherein the reported number of infections is at odds with the demonstrated contagiousness of the virus.
Which leads me to conclude that the real rate of infection is significantly higher than just the ~4,200 cases which is what is reported.
How else could it be explained?
Curve may be flattening too quickly now???, page-96
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 234 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)