Why a SARS-CoV-2 variant that's 50% more transmissible would in general be a much bigger problem than a variant that's 50% more deadly. A short thread... 1/

2:40 PM ยท Dec 28, 2020

367
8,784
1,659
20,984
As an example, suppose current R=1.1, infection fatality risk is 0.8%, generation time is 6 days, and 10k people infected (plausible for many European cities recently). So we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x 0.8% = 129 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread... 2/
26
396
12
2,518
What happens if fatality risk increases by 50%? By above, we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x (0.8% x 1.5) = 193 new fatalities. 3/
9
330
6
2,276
Now suppose transmissibility increases by 50%. By above, we'd expect 10000 x (1.1 x 1.5)^5 x 0.8% = 978 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread. 4/
21
405
19
2,721
The above is just an illustrative example, but the key message: an increase in something that grows exponentially (i.e. transmission) can have far more effect than the same proportional increase in something that just scales an outcome (i.e. severity). 5/5
138
904
53
6,270
This Tweet is from a suspended account.
35,000 tweets since June? Bruh, get a life
2
0
0
2
Replying to @AdamJKucharski
Oh no ๐Ÿ˜ž
0
0
0
2
Replying to @AdamJKucharski
So if my understanding is correct, Greater transmisibility is a far worse outcome than increased severity as the proportion of people effected is greater?
6
13
1
165
The same proportion of people who are infected die, but far more people are infected in a given time/population.
5
24
0
302