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
The number of secondary cases can be used to _empirically_ estimate the **offspring distribution**, which is the number of secondary _infections_ caused by each case. One candidate statistical distribution used to model the offspring distribution is the **negative binomial** distribution with two parameters:
260
279
261
280
-**Mean**, which represents the $R_{0}$, the average number of (secondary) cases produced by a single individual in an entirely susceptible population, and
262
281
263
282
-**Dispersion**, expressed as $k$, which represents the individual-level variation in transmission by single individuals.
From the histogram and density plot, we can identify that the offspring distribution is highly skewed or **overdispersed**. In this framework, the superspreading events (SSEs) are not arbitrary or exceptional, but simply realizations from the right-hand tail of the offspring distribution, which we can quantify and analyse ([Lloyd-Smith et al., 2005](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04153)).
From a visual inspection, the distribution of secondary cases for the Ebola data set in `ebola_sim_clean` shows an skewed distribution with secondary cases equal or lower than 6. We need to complement this observation with a statistical analysis to evaluate for overdispersion.
341
360
@@ -388,7 +407,7 @@ From the number secondary cases distribution we estimated a dispersion parameter
388
407
389
408
We can overlap the estimated density values of the fitted negative binomial distribution and the histogram of the number of secondary cases:
0 commit comments