You seem to fit a gamma distribution to the raw data pulled from the Linton et al study, but my understanding is that we should rather use estimates that are adjusted for right truncation (i.e., Table 2). It means a substantial difference, first, because the best fitting curve is log-normal and not gamma (actually it is true even for the raw numbers of onset-to-death in Table 1, at least based on AIC), and perhaps even more importantly, there is a huge difference in the dispersion: your estimates for the gamma distribution imply an SD of 6.7, while Table 2 gives 11.6 (or 12.7 if admission-to-death is considered).
You seem to fit a gamma distribution to the raw data pulled from the Linton et al study, but my understanding is that we should rather use estimates that are adjusted for right truncation (i.e., Table 2). It means a substantial difference, first, because the best fitting curve is log-normal and not gamma (actually it is true even for the raw numbers of onset-to-death in Table 1, at least based on AIC), and perhaps even more importantly, there is a huge difference in the dispersion: your estimates for the gamma distribution imply an SD of 6.7, while Table 2 gives 11.6 (or 12.7 if admission-to-death is considered).