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. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      26/n There's also some discussion of the obviously underestimated studies, which begs the question why they were included in the first place? They are clearly not realistic numberspic.twitter.com/PFpfWbNTZk

      3 replies 9 retweets 118 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      27/n ...and then a paragraph about Iran that contradicts the earlier points raised about why NYC has seen so many deathspic.twitter.com/u70mD8SEWH

      3 replies 8 retweets 103 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      28/n Some discussion about press release science (we are agreed that it isn't good) but no mention of government reports This is a HUGE gap to the study

      2 replies 9 retweets 128 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      29/n For example, why wasn't this Spanish seroprevalence study included? It is the biggest in the world, and estimates IFR to be ~1-1.3% - triple the highest estimate in this review!pic.twitter.com/VUxKFVNO2O

      14 replies 47 retweets 297 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      30/n On the other hand, why were clearly biased estimates included? Why was 500 arbitrarily the minimum size considered for included research (if you choose 1,000, the IFRs are suddenly much higher)

      2 replies 12 retweets 178 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      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

      10 replies 30 retweets 299 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      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

      5 replies 29 retweets 206 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      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

      2 replies 19 retweets 160 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      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

      7 replies 16 retweets 170 likes
      Show this thread
    10. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      Health Nerd Retweeted

      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 …

      Health Nerd added,

      This Tweet is unavailable.
      7 replies 16 retweets 167 likes
      Show this thread
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

      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

      11:22 PM - 19 May 2020
      • 12 Retweets
      • 184 Likes
      • 🔴🔴🔴kwippo Thatcher Ulrich Dinocaridid Γιώργος Κυλάφας 💉💉 Marc Casañas Escarré Tom Sweeney onion | she/they Jepa Pihlainen The Meme Guy
      4 replies 12 retweets 184 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 19 May 2020

          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

          16 replies 15 retweets 217 likes
          Show this thread
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 20 May 2020

          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

          4 replies 9 retweets 78 likes
          Show this thread
        4. End of conversation
        1. Starving Engineer‏ @edw_tweet 20 May 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          Starving Engineer Retweeted Starving Engineer

          https://twitter.com/edw_tweet/status/1263000694740725760 …

          Starving Engineer added,

          Starving Engineer @edw_tweet
          Replying to @C_Althaus
          This preprint is so bad that the review will basically *do the research he was supposed to do*. And then he will update and put his name on it. This is almost a scam.
          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. This Tweet is unavailable.
        2. 100% Unbiased (like everyone else)‏ @SciencePartisan 20 May 2020
          Replying to @dchen333 @GidMK

          Yes. If he wants to calculate under 70 IFR there’d be some utility in that. But then it can’t be compared to the flu. It’s hard to see how someone who wrote a book on how statistics lie makes so many simple stats errors.

          0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
        3. End of conversation
        1. David Ellison‏ @dhekidney 20 May 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          The problem is that the damage is already done, as the press (and the Twitterverse) is all over this. As has been pointed out, bad science spreads faster (larger R0) than good!

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo

      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