Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

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
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

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.

    1. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      1. There's a relatively new study out of Denmark that estimates seroprevalence from nearly 10,000 blood donations by people age 17-69 to be 1.7% (CI: 0.9-2.3). https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v1.full.pdf …pic.twitter.com/X3eBqRwT1N

      24 replies 141 retweets 408 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      2. Based on these numbers, the authors estimate an infection fatality rate considerably lower than many US estimates—lower even than that from the Santa Clara and LA county studies: 0.082% (CI: 0.059-0.154%).pic.twitter.com/TMbdOkeYaq

      3 replies 15 retweets 78 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      3. Methodologically this study seems to avoid many of the problems that plague the Californian studies, most notably because sampling bias is reduced by using blood donations instead of soliciting patients specifically for serotype testing.

      8 replies 5 retweets 93 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      4. As the authors clearly state, that this paper estimates the infection fatality rate for people ages 17-69 only. This is very important, because the fatality rate skyrockets in people 70 and up. Thus the 0.082 IFR for this age group is an underestimate of the population IFR.pic.twitter.com/WDrBaOq9O3

      5 replies 19 retweets 118 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      5. How big of an underestimate is it? We can get a ballpark figure by looking at the relative age-specific CFR rates from the Wu and McGoogan JAMA study, weighting each by UN data about the demographic structure of Denmark.pic.twitter.com/EgAM1ylIv2

      2 replies 7 retweets 64 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      6. When you go through this process, you find that the population IFR should be almost exactly twice the IFR in the 20-69 category. (I don't have data to extend down to age 17). This yields a population IFR estimate of something like 0.16% with approximate CI 0.12-0.31.

      5 replies 5 retweets 67 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      7. This is very close to the data coming out of California, data that I have publicly criticized. This is puzzling. With 0.15% of New York City's population dead from COVID19, that seems to be a very hard lower bound on IFR. Realistically, 0.7-1.0% seems more likely for NYC.

      16 replies 11 retweets 108 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      8. Other estimates of IFR also land in that range 0.5%-1%. While the authors of the Danish study discuss some limitations, I don't see obvious glaring flaws. Lag times to death may come into play. What, if anything, am I missing?

      40 replies 6 retweets 76 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      Carl T. Bergstrom Retweeted Carl T. Bergstrom

      9. @kearnsneuro quickly picked up one thing. The age distribution of blood donor population is probably not representative of the age distribution in the population at large.https://twitter.com/i/status/1255759911570386944 …

      Carl T. Bergstrom added,

      Carl T. BergstromVerified account @CT_Bergstrom
      1. There's a relatively new study out of Denmark that estimates seroprevalence from nearly 10,000 blood donations by people age 17-69 to be 1.7% (CI: 0.9-2.3). https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v1.full.pdf … pic.twitter.com/X3eBqRwT1N
      Show this thread
      9 replies 7 retweets 112 likes
      Show this thread
    10. Carl T. Bergstrom‏Verified account @CT_Bergstrom 30 Apr 2020

      10. Why does this matter? If younger people are more likely to be infected *and* more likely to give blood, the procedure described in the paper would yield an underestimate of IFR. Still I'd be surprised if this gets us all the way up to the NYC numbers.pic.twitter.com/bGTAyuWG4A

      10 replies 8 retweets 81 likes
      Show this thread
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 30 Apr 2020
      Replying to @CT_Bergstrom

      Tbh I'd be very cautious drawing any inferences from this to the general population. With such a selected sample, correcting for population characteristics can only take you so far imo, it won't eliminate the core problem

      1:13 AM - 30 Apr 2020
      • 1 Like
      • Stanzi le Roux
      0 replies 0 retweets 1 like

      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