You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I know that this is the classical interpretation of the growth rate, but wanted to point out the alternative version suggested in Parag et al. which instead computes the log derivative on the infectiousness (and shifts it by the mean generation time). When testing this in EpiSewer, it seemed to be slightly more stable and r=0 had a better temporal matching with Rt=1.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The growth rate is currently estimated via the log derivative of infections, see
EpiNow2/inst/stan/functions/generated_quantities.stan
Lines 33 to 39 in 35483d0
I know that this is the classical interpretation of the growth rate, but wanted to point out the alternative version suggested in Parag et al. which instead computes the log derivative on the infectiousness (and shifts it by the mean generation time). When testing this in EpiSewer, it seemed to be slightly more stable and
r=0
had a better temporal matching withRt=1
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: