Simply shocking. How on earth is it possible that @NatureComms publishes a highly criticized study with a flawed estimate of the IFR that is based on 7 (!) deaths only, when there are several national seroprevalence studies?https://twitter.com/hristio/status/1331968923558944769 …
-
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.
-
-
Strange that study acknowledges potential censoring but doesn't adjust for it. If above is correct, sounds like
@NatureComms should ask the authors to make an update/correction.pic.twitter.com/dKG16LGWyu
-
Also please look at thishttps://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1329618528991907840 …
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
Which would make the studies results on IFR much more in line with similar studies
@C_Althaus ? - Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
-
-
Um, if they published in June, how would they include deaths that happened in October? Also it seems very unlikely that deaths that happen months after an infection are the result of the disease. At the very least, you'd have to prove that.
Dziękujemy. Twitter skorzysta z tych informacji, aby Twoja oś czasu bardziej Ci odpowiadała. CofnijCofnij
-
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.