Nate Silver

@NateSilver538 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Oct. 14, 2020

Created

Wed Apr 29 21:35:27 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

A month is enough time for that 2.5% of cases to spread 5-6 times over. If cases were turning over with an R of 1.3 (maybe what you'd get with relaxed social distancing) that gradually declines because of increasing herd immunity, you'd wind up with something roughly like this: — PolitiTweet.org

Posted April 29, 2020 Hibernated

Preceded By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

So... I think al their data is pretty compatible. First of all, one needs to be careful about comparing stocks (total number of people ever infected) and flows (number of people infected at any one time). So let's say the *flow* in Stockholm was 2.5% of people infected as of 4/1. — PolitiTweet.org

These projections that 30% of Stockholmers have already had the coronavirus are so strange. The government did rand… https://t.co/5vUfPN8Ut9

Posted April 29, 2020 Hibernated

Followed By

Nate Silver @NateSilver538

Generation 0: 2.5% newly infected Generation 1: 3.3% Generation 2: 3.7% Generation 3: 4.1% Generation 4: 4.3% Generation 5: 4.2% Generation 6: 3.9% Or something like that. Which would get you to 26% infected cumulatively. Actually higher, since some people had it before Gen 0. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted April 29, 2020 Hibernated