Now, this still isn't anywhere near "herd immunity" territory, but it's worth pointing out that the staggering loss of life will probably have ~some~ impact on future disease transmission Still, a huge cost
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Here's the April serology (which is even higher now) in the areas hardest hit in NYC so you may need to rethinking your IFR assumptions for NYC:pic.twitter.com/Yh1YJe6KGH
-
Actually the 0.9% is based on the April serology. Depending on how you account for right-censoring, the serology from April implies an IFR of 0.77-1% in NYC
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The Lancet published seroprevalence in 364 Hong Kong residents evacuated from Wuhan in early March. 16 tested positive, or prevalence of 4.40%. If the returnees represent the infection rate of Wuhan general population, as had been assumed in Verity's study, Wuhan IFR is 0.79%
-
The Wuhan returnees seroprevalence study https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30053-7/fulltext … 0.79% is very close to Verity's study and other regions' IFR inferred from seroprevalence
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.