Interesting meta-analysis of current papers. Results estimate IFR at 0.79% (0.53%-1.05%). I personally wouldn't have included the Bendavid et al. Santa Clara study (biased sampling and bad maths) but it still shows that the THL 0.1 to 0.2 IFR is not supported by data or modeling.https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1254971248628531200 …
-
-
Good to know. And I guess it avoids any accusations of biased sampling of included studies.
-
Yep. I don't think a single estimate is going to make an enormous difference. Excluding that study, the MA goes from 0.79 (0.53-1.05) to 0.81 (0.61-1.02) although heterogeneity drops quite a bit
- 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.