An argument for *random* COVID-19 testing. Tesing is biased toward the sick & ill. So we don't know how much COVID-19 there is or how dangerous it is. This uncertainty => over and/or under reaction. We can't manage what we don't measure respresentatively. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ …
But we learn a lot! As I said, we know enormous amounts about the disease, we just don't have a ~perfect~ sample and the certainty that comes from it. The issue with Ioannidis is that he's essentially arguing that without perfection, we know nothing
-
-
Have you seen the confidence intervals?? Our estimates of mobility and mortality, transmission and prevalence are so wide we know very little. I don't think we need a perfect sample, but a little more precision is warranted.
-
CIs are mostly a function of sample size, not sampling accuracy. I do agree we don't know a lot, but I would strongly disagree that we know very little. We have a very good idea of the R0, confident estimates of hospitalization rate, and pretty decent predictions of morbidity
- Show replies
New 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.