20/n If we exclude these potentially misleading numbers, the lowest IFR estimate immediately jumps from 0.04% to 0.18% Coincidentally, that 0.18% is Ioannidis' own researchpic.twitter.com/PlaOSJ1AbB
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
31/n Which brings us to this conclusion, which is, frankly, a bit astonishing Is it a fact? That's certainly not shown in this review, and most evidence seems to contradict this statementpic.twitter.com/V9LKRjHKHv
32/n The final thoughts here may make this a bit more understandable It seems the author is not a fan of lockdowns. Perhaps this has driven his decisions for his review?pic.twitter.com/BcvRv1XooZ
33/n Ultimately, it's hard to know the why, but what we can say is that this review appears to have very significantly underestimated the infection-fatality rate of COVID-19
34/n Moreover, the methodology is quite clearly inadequate to estimate the IFR of COVID-19, and thus the study fails to achieve its own primary objective
35/n Something that people are pointing out - another weakness of this study is that the author appears to have taken the LOWEST POSSIBLE IFR estimate from each study For example, the Gangelt authors posited an IFR of 0.37-.46%, this paper cites 0.28% https://twitter.com/FreisinnigeZtg/status/1262983934549397511?s=20 …
36/n I should note - this paper is currently a PREPRINT This gives us a great opportunity. We can correct the record in real time, and put up a study that actually achieves its aims Let's hope it happens
37/n I think it's also worth pointing out that I personally WISH that the IFR of COVID-19 was 0.02%. It would solve so many of our problems - unfortunately, it seems extremely unlikely
38/n Another good critique of the study is here: https://quomodocumque.wordpress.com/2020/05/19/pandemic-blog-23-why-one-published-research-finding-is-misleading/ … It appears that for the Netherlands study, the number provided in this review is roughly 6x lower than the true IFR
on 500, he writes : "Only studies with at least 500 assessed samples were considered, since smaller datasets would entail extremely large uncertainty for any calculations to be based on them"
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.