Totally random sampling makes no sense as we want probability sampling to favor finding positive cases. But the current approach doesn't give us statistical knowledge. I'm not an epidemiologist (don't know the field also see ethics thread) but current test frame teaches us little
I never said "perfect" estimates, but the range of plausible R0s, death rates, etc has shrunk significantly. It's incredibly unlikely, for example, that the death rate is anywhere near as low as Ioannidis hypothesizes
-
-
I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be semantic but you literally said "we just don't have a ~ perfect ~ sample"... That's the only reason I wrote that reply... I would never get into these words games unless the straw man was actually advanced as argument.
-
I'm not sure I understand. My point is that we have a reasonable understanding of what the morbidity/mortality is likely to be - it may not be perfect, but it is also not nothing
- 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.