23/n The same is true of other places overseas - Lombardy has a total death toll of 0.16%, Madrid is around the same, even London is above 0.1% dead due to COVID-19 It seems INCREDIBLY unlikely, at this point, for the IFR to be below 0.1%
-
-
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
Show this thread -
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 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@ThreadReaders Unroll, Please.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.