Everyone is telling the same story give or take a bit around the edges. If you still have hospitals, you had less than 100k cases two weeks ago. Two quibbles: 1) Age-adjust. 2) It's exponential enough and takes long enough to recover I'm ignoring recoveries. Maybe 125K.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- Show replies
-
-
-
Most likely BS... without random sampling there is no way to even talk about incidence in population...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wall Street Journal also came out with similar article today from two Stanford Drs. Stating that infection rates are enormously understated and that if corrected it would show a much lower Cfr very confusing for people to get grasp on how bad this disease is.
-
I guess they're doing it on purpose to play down the severity of the virus.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I come to a similar conclusion here: https://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/2020/03/oxford-covid-model.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Have you got “as a professional “ anything constructive to say?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree with the thrust of this but you misstate their assumption: "that 1% or fewer of the population is susceptible to COVID-19." See this thread:https://twitter.com/chrishanretty/status/1242504617897885697 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.