You can run statistical tests to check all of these things and see if your assumptions are correct, but the authors didn't This is first-year stats stuff, and it's just missed entirely
-
-
Or block you...
-
True, but
@DrAdrianHeald has said he's very happy to discuss criticisms. These are all simple errors that largely invalidate the paper - I imagine that he'd be keen to correct them (I would be) - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@threader_app compile -
Hi, this thread is compiled. If it’s an old thread be sure to compile it from the last tweet to retrieve it entirely. You can read it here: https://threader.app/thread/1261902795201843200 …
#COVID19
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes there are a fair number of problems with the paper, but your critique is off. The study is essentially trying to fit R(t) = R0 (1 - p) where p is proportion resistant using cumulative number of confirmed infections x as a surrogate for p, positing p = a x
-
In both cases linearity is not an unreasonable assumption (your criticism 1), although one should be cautious that * 'a' may not be stable wrt time, as testing regimes change (to allow different dates to be compared, cumulative hospitalisations might be better)
- 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.
