This is clear up confusion from last night (and add some post publication peer review) to this paper in @lancetmicrobe https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30053-7/fulltext … 1/n
-
Show this thread
-
The headline finding of ‘far from herd immunity’ (also emphasized by this piece) stands up. But once you get into the discussion, things turn weird. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30055-0/fulltext … 2/n
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
First “Among 452 returnees evacuated from Hubei province in March, 2020, the seroprevalence was 4%, with the majority (88%) being confirmed by microneutralisation assay.” 3/n
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
But earlier in the results “665 serum samples were collected from 452 returnees from Hubei province (of which 364 [80·5%] were from Wuhan)” So it’s not a random sample of Hubei (or likely even Wuhan but let’s not get distracted) 4/n
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Then later, “Of the 17 seropositive returnees…16 individuals who were seropositive had been staying in Wuhan” So again it’s mostly Wuhan, not Hubei. And we know that there were few deaths outside the city. 5/n
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Bill Hanage Retweeted Nicola Low #EveryDayCounts #StillFBPE
This matters, because later in the discussion these data end up being used to estimate the total number of cases and infection fatality rate for Hubei! It comes in at 0.16% - much much lower than estimated elsewhere.
@nicolamlow spotted this https://twitter.com/nicolamlow/status/1268434824731283456?s=20 … 6/nBill Hanage added,
Nicola Low #EveryDayCounts #StillFBPE @nicolamlowReplying to @BillHanageImportant: I must say, I don't like seeing extrapolations to mortality rates in the discussion section. If it's an important result, it should be in the results. Here, have they extrapolated 4% sero+ to population of Hubei and Wuhan? Results say 16/17 sero+ were from Wuhan 1/n pic.twitter.com/kqvZ5RBNZF1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
Then as pointed out by
@viciykevin and@chenchenzh. If we limit ourselves only to the returnees from Wuhan (with caveat that they’re not necessarily a representative sample) 16/364 are seropositive, or 4.4%. 4.4% of Wuhan (popn 11 million) is nearly 500,000. 7/n1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Bill Hanage Retweeted Health Nerd
Now there were about 4000 deaths in Wuhan (NYT). So what would that imply for the IFR in Wuhan? It would be about 0.8% That is a number that *is* consistent with the data from elsewhere (HT
@unsorsodicorda for the link) https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1267683223712104450?s=20 … 8/nBill Hanage added,
Health NerdVerified account @GidMKFor those interested, here's the latest meta-analysis of COVID-19 IFR. Some changes: - revised confidence intervals for several studies - removed 2 models (CEBM and Basu) - Added Denmark and Brazilian estimates Point estimate is largely the same at 0.66% (0.52-0.8%) pic.twitter.com/OCiZRNSVtQShow this thread2 replies 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Yet again, a story that seems to indicate that
#COVID19 is actually mild turns out to say nothing of the kind once you dig into it (can a note to that effect be added@onisillos?) Thanks to@nicolamlow@chenchenzh@viciykevin and@sudha_lakshmi for making me come back to it 9/end6 replies 3 retweets 17 likesShow this thread
Yes, I was somewhat confused when I read it. Doesn't really make sense to use the entire population of Hubei as the denominator, because most of the people came from Wuhan
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @BillHanage and
Also, in early April the govt revised death numbers upwards in Wuhan/ Hubei substantially, so using the late March numbers could be misleading
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
People keep forgetting that by March there really wasn't much going on in Wuhan. And yes there was that big leap in mid april. Anyway gotta go write a letter to the journal pointing it all out!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.