Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
DiseaseEcology's profile
A Marm Kilpatrick
A Marm Kilpatrick
A Marm Kilpatrick
@DiseaseEcology

Tweets

A Marm Kilpatrick

@DiseaseEcology

Disease Ecology, Population Biology

Univ California Santa Cruz
kilpatrick.eeb.ucsc.edu
Joined August 2013

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

    What can we conclude from 1st serosurvey results from NY just made public by Cuomo? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html …https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-antibodies-test-ny.html …

    1:13 PM - 23 Apr 2020
    • 8 Retweets
    • 15 Likes
    • nena #NotMyPresident #Texit 🩸 juno 🔥 morrow 🩸 SeaTwin Jerson Cochancela Will Satterthwaite Donkey of Karas Dr. Dana Hawley Chomes Dr. Benedicte Callan
    2 replies 8 retweets 15 likes
      1. New conversation
      2. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        Data from 3,000 people at grocery and bigbox stores. No info on what fraction refused to provide sample (which indicates potential size of bias). No information reported on test used or test characteristics. So, no idea about false + or- %. No info on date when study was done.

        2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
        Show this thread
      3. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        Most important: Bias from recruiting at grocery stories definitely exists. How big? We can't know w/out more data. Same for bias w/in people that were asked (those w/ covid-19 symptoms might be more likely to volunteer). Can't be >5x in NYC (b/c prev can't be >100%)

        2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
        Show this thread
      4. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        With all these unknowns, what can we conclude? 1st, this is not how data this crucially important data should be released. It would take study team 15 min to prepare doc w/ details that could address many of these issues. Cuomo is being irresponsible.

        2 replies 4 retweets 9 likes
        Show this thread
      5. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        Thus we are left to make HUGE assumptions to try to make any sense of the data. Since people will draw conclusions anyway we can at least make our assumptions clear.

        1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
        Show this thread
      6. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        Raw results: NYC: 21%, 16.7% Long Island, 11.7% in Westchester and Rockland Counties; Rest of NY: 3.6% No info on N by location.

        1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
        Show this thread
      7. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        If we assume false +s <5% (& upper CI <20%) & data were adjusted for false +, then lower CI on prevalence would exclude zero (which wasn't the case w/ Stanford study). https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ …

        2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        Show this thread
      8. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        Prev CIs for individual locations could be wide if N for some locations is small. But ASSUMING evenly split among 4 regions N=750 and 0 uncertainty in test false +/-, crude CIs are: 18-24%NYC, 14-20%LI, 9.5-14%W/R, 2.4-5.2%. Uncertainty in false+/- could GREATLY widen these.

        1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
        Show this thread
      9. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        If ALL biases are small AND test is well characterized (small CI of false+ and false-), approx ratio of test + to actual infections is: 12 NYC, 20 LI, (4.4 W, 3.9R - had to split and assumed equal %), 4.0 Rest NY. These values are in range of what most have assumed (~10 (5-20)x).

        1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
        Show this thread
      10. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        A Marm Kilpatrick Retweeted A Marm Kilpatrick

        Ratio of test + to actual infections is much smaller than numbers cited in Stanford studies in LA (28-55) and Santa Clara (50-85). Differences likely due to biases in serosurveys and testing capacity.https://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1251225273871134721 …

        A Marm Kilpatrick added,

        A Marm Kilpatrick @DiseaseEcology
        Stanford Serology study preprint just posted that is certain to mislead many people: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1.full.pdf … It's a serological study, which is fantastic. We need these kinds of studies and data badly. Unfortunately this paper is badly misleading (bordering on purposeful?)
        Show this thread
        2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
        Show this thread
      11. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        A Marm Kilpatrick Retweeted A Marm Kilpatrick

        So with a HUGE # of assumptions (b/c no details released w/ data and serosurvey not well designed), I think we can draw these conclusions: 1)IFR is likely w/in range from other studies - 0.3-1.2% and and much> 0.1%https://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1252844190070829056 …

        A Marm Kilpatrick added,

        A Marm Kilpatrick @DiseaseEcology
        What is "fatality" of COVID19? Still lots of confusion out there about case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR). One is what you want to know but almost never gets reported (IFR) & the other one (CFR) is reported all the time but is nearly meaningless. A thread.
        Show this thread
        1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes
        Show this thread
      12. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        A Marm Kilpatrick Retweeted A Marm Kilpatrick

        Minimum Point IFRs (IFRvsCFR: https://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1252844190070829056 …) (min b/c WITHOUT accounting for avg time b/w seroconv vs death & calc using prob + conf deaths): 0.87%NYC, 0.26%LI, 1.0%West, 1.5% Rock, 0.6% Rest NY. But CIs on all these would be large so I bet they all overlap broadly.

        A Marm Kilpatrick added,

        A Marm Kilpatrick @DiseaseEcology
        What is "fatality" of COVID19? Still lots of confusion out there about case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR). One is what you want to know but almost never gets reported (IFR) & the other one (CFR) is reported all the time but is nearly meaningless. A thread.
        Show this thread
        1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
        Show this thread
      13. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        2) Transmission in NYC and surrounding areas was intense (didn't need serosurvey to know this). 3) under-ascertainment of cases in NY is 5-20x, as most previously assumed, not 30-85x: 4) The fraction of pop that is still susceptible is unfortunately still large (80-97%)

        1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes
        Show this thread
      14. A Marm Kilpatrick‏ @DiseaseEcology 23 Apr 2020

        Hopefully study details will be released and we can greatly refine these conclusions. Please raise Qs with any of these calculations or assumptions. It's too important to get any of this wrong. @taaltree @joshuasweitz

        3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes
        Show this thread
      15. End of conversation

    Loading seems to be taking a while.

    Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2021 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info