"This infection is very common"
This is blatantly wrong - even using the highest estimates from his own research, COVID-19 had only infected 4% of people when the study was done
Hard to keep arguing that these are simple "mistakes" @venkmurthyhttps://twitter.com/CNN/status/1256579248342564865 …
-
-
In other words, he's produced the single biggest outlier, but is arguing that it agrees with other studies I'm struggling not to see this as disingenuous
Show this thread -
Also, wonder how a 6-minute incredibly positive interview on CNN plays into the narrative of Ioannidis being demonized and silenced
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But 2-3x isn’t that much of a difference on an exponential curve. You’re talking a week or two difference in initial seeding of the population in a given area. Not hard to imagine that happening. Maybe Santa Clara got seeded a week or two later than other places
-
Not number of infections - infection fatality rate. His study estimates this at ~0.1%, which is much lower than the 0.5-1% that you see in other studies
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Similar IFR to Miami-Dade, Idaho, San Diego, Chelsea, Denmark, Japan, and Iran studies.
-
Untrue. Similar to the Denmark study, but that was in 18-69 year olds. Japan came to a much higher estimate. Miami test had a confirmed high rate of false positives and could be unreliable. Haven't seen published estimates of Idaho or San Diego got a link?
End of conversation
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.