PMC:7029158 / 16242-16774 JSONTXT

In our previous article (Tang et al., 2020), we had estimated a reproduction number of 6.47 (95% CI 5.71–7.23), which represents a higher value than those so far computed. For instance, the WHO has estimated a reproduction number of 1.4–2.5, Li and colleagues (Li et al., 2020) have computed a slightly higher value of 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.9), while in several other mathematical models which have been so far devised and released as pre-prints or undergone peer-review and published, the reproduction number varies from 1.3 to 4.7.

In our previous article (Tang et al., 2020), we had estimated a reproduction number of 6.47 (95% CI 5.71–7.23), which represents a higher value than those so far computed. For instance, the WHO has estimated a reproduction number of 1.4–2.5, Li and colleagues (Li et al., 2020) have computed a slightly higher value of 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.9), while in several other mathematical models which have been so far devised and released as pre-prints or undergone peer-review and published, the reproduction number varies from 1.3 to 4.7.

In our previous article (Tang et al., 2020), we had estimated a reproduction number of 6.47 (95% CI 5.71–7.23), which represents a higher value than those so far computed. For instance, the WHO has estimated a reproduction number of 1.4–2.5, Li and colleagues (Li et al., 2020) have computed a slightly higher value of 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 3.9), while in several other mathematical models which have been so far devised and released as pre-prints or undergone peer-review and published, the reproduction number varies from 1.3 to 4.7.