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
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
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
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.
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!
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.