Selected article for: "recovery rate and transmission rate"

Author: Amir Shlomai; Ari Leshno; Ella H Sklan; Moshe Leshno
Title: Global versus focused isolation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-A cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Document date: 2020_4_1
  • ID: 1mpp7sbt_30
    Snippet: We used R0=2.4 (range 1.4-3.9) (13), we assumed that the recovery time is 26 days, thus the transmission rate from infected (carrier) patients to susceptible population (β) was 0.09 (range 0.031 to 0.186)(13). According to the data of the number of infected people in Israel, published by the Israeli Ministry of Health, the transmission rate would be higher, β=0.22, or R0=5.7, which is unlikely. The main reason for the discrepancy is that the nu.....
    Document: We used R0=2.4 (range 1.4-3.9) (13), we assumed that the recovery time is 26 days, thus the transmission rate from infected (carrier) patients to susceptible population (β) was 0.09 (range 0.031 to 0.186)(13). According to the data of the number of infected people in Israel, published by the Israeli Ministry of Health, the transmission rate would be higher, β=0.22, or R0=5.7, which is unlikely. The main reason for the discrepancy is that the number of infected people in Israel includes imported cases. As all subjects coming to Israel from abroad are isolated, in the model we did not include imported cases. Case fatality rates vary between different countries ranging from 7.2% in Italy to 0.2% in Germany (14) . Thus, for the rate of death ( ) in our basic model we considered a moderate estimate of 2.6% or 0.001 per day over 26 days of infection. RR1-3 represents the estimated part of the population which does not have any contacts in each type of isolation.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents