[zamfi]

> The claims about shopping are...unsupported and go contrary to an enormous volume of evidence (namely the high R0).

Honestly? An R0 of 2-3 is frankly not that high.

If grocery shopping were a huge risk, and people spread the disease before being symptomatic, you’d expect a single sick individual to infect way more than just 2-3 people on average.

Compare with measles’ 12-18 R0. That’s high.

[endorphone]

The CDC is now estimating the R0 at 5.7, which is really high, and seems much more likely given the extremely rapid spread in areas like NYC.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

[fxj]

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the causative agent of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease pandemic. Initial estimates of the early dynamics of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, suggested a doubling time of the number of infected persons of 6–7 days and a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. We collected extensive individual case reports across China and estimated key epidemiologic parameters, including the incubation period. We then designed 2 mathematical modeling approaches to infer the outbreak dynamics in Wuhan by using high-resolution domestic travel and infection data. Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9)

[xenonite]

So, what is your verdict? This only confirms the OP’s claim that the R0 might be much higher than expected.

[fxj]

Just wanted to give the information. The facts speak for themselves.

[xenonite]

Ok, considering that the OP was heavily downvoted without anyone voicing concerns, I am frankly not so sure about that.

[zamfi]

That is high, but that study assumes a serial interval of 6-9 days, which is on the far long end of estimates I’ve seen (~4 days).

That basically explains the difference...