The Gangelt study was used by flu bros and herd immunity via infection enthusiasts to sow doubt and discontent with respect to the public health interventions. The delay and dilution of those measures in the early stages of the almost certainly cost lives.
-
-
-
*of the epidemic
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
So if these delayed outcomes are included, would scale the IFR estimate up to 0.35% x 13/7 = 0.65%?pic.twitter.com/xKyaTbBwpY
-
Yes. 13/1956 = 0.66% and the binomial confidence interval would be 0.35% - 1.13%. But they can’t even get that right.
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
Another garbage IFR meta-analysis, toss it in the circular file next to the one from Ioannidis.
-
Could you elaborate on the loannidis one? It’s being cited in arguments against measures again.
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
Given the importance of such studies and their public perception it would be good if some other researchers would adress their critic directly to the editors, so that they can publish it.
-
@medwatch_de did adress questions to him and another author, they declined to answer afaik.
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
The slow pace of science? It's definitely outdated but so was our meta-analysis of IFR by the time it was actually published in IJID The flaws, of course, are a different story, that's not great
-
You're a gentleman, but in this case I am afraid lesser motives can be assumed concerning Prof. All clear also known as Prof. Idle, because he stated in German Television it would be idle, pointless to look at the Covid fatalities numbers. ...Pheew!
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.