Of note - I think the seroprevalence studies are converging at a slightly lower IFR than models and PCR data, it looks like the eventual population IFR will probably be around 0.6%
-
-
Show this thread
-
Fascinatingly, it appears that more and more data is supporting the initial estimate of ~0.6% from Imperial College modelling on Diamond Princess Data way back in early Marchpic.twitter.com/sx4pxZd2cJ
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Still a lot of serosurveys being excluded here. What's wrong with the Danish blood donors study by Erikstrup et al? Sure, it's for younger than 70 but you could infer an IFR by using demographic data
-
And what's wrong with the LA County study? JAMA has it here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766367 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
2 suggestions: - weight the estimates by # of deaths. Streeck paper <10 deaths, in Spain and New York > 20,000 - reweight the Spanish data to uniform attack rate by age. p8 of their release shows increasing prevalence by age
-
I also wouldn’t include the CEBM estimate, as it doesn’t include any original data
End of conversation
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.