Model-consistent estimation of the basic reproduction number from the incidence of an emerging infection

We investigate the merit of deriving an estimate of the basic reproduction number \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $$\mathcal{R}_0$$ \end{document} early in an outbreak of an (emerging) infection from estimates of the incidence and generation interval only. We compare such estimates of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $$\mathcal{R}_0$$ \end{document} with estimates incorporating additional model assumptions, and determine the circumstances under which the different estimates are consistent. We show that one has to be careful when using observed exponential growth rates to derive an estimate of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} $$\mathcal{R}_0$$ \end{document} , and we quantify the discrepancies that arise