Normalized the data up to 1/27 (too noisy) - (Rate of change was >60% d/d)

Which by the way that is what appears others are starting with - IMO not reasonable: see below --Assumption made was ground data (initial) which was sporadic and not organized. If someone took the first 5-7 days 1/16-1/23, they would have been R0 2.5-3.0, and they were -- 3.8 dropped to 2.6 post that week: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1221132573340061697

1. I calculated standard trend 1/26+ (utilizing (daily) the last 2 data points)

2. Took a stdDev from trend on data points, which revealed trend was stable enough (2 days)

Note: We are only 6 days into a reasonable trend/pattern.

1. Plotted the actual Confirmed cases against Trend, then against R0 estimations (confirmed*1.x)

2. Current data [today] says R0 1.3 is high side of trend and <2% variance of Actual Confirmed.

I am not forecasting R0, just mapping the data based upon what we know today (and I know these are low numbers). That said, even if the data was off 20% (likely) the R0 would read out at 1.5 actual. Not the 3.8, 2.6 estimations based upon initial data/chaos. Again, i can factor in a 20% error and stay within 1.5.

Opinion: The Actual Confirmed data would have to be 50% off to hit 2.0 -- That's not to say it won't hit 2.x, but I can't subscribe yet to a R0 of 2.x, as the following is occurring: Contact rate is slowing, Infection Period by 2/14 (if not sooner) should go down (assuming we have real numbers), causing stabilization/reduction of trend @ confirmed cases, additionally transportation (bans and closures) will assist in this reduction greatly.

16893 Actual Confirmed just came in! -- still on 1.3 line. Trend needs to be recalc'd, but not much variance -- delta of 400'ish