But I guess the dates are important here: 4% and 10% when? Also, the authors are looking at March 31. But there's a time lag to seroconversion. It also matters when these people were evacuated. And of course there's a time lag to death too. Hard to put that all together yet.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @sudha_lakshmi @Doryphore6 and
Hubei and Wuhan numbers changed very little b/w 31 March and now: 29 new deaths (not incl revision), and there hasn't been a new death for over a month. Wuhan did its serological survey in mid April, and the positive rate was 5%-6%, or 450k-540k ppl. Similar to their estimate.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @sudha_lakshmi and
Chenchen Zhang 🤦🏻♀️ Retweeted Yanzhong Huang
it's not my duty to translate an article for you but yes, it mentions this.https://twitter.com/YanzhongHuang/status/1261330849561223168?s=20 …
Chenchen Zhang 🤦🏻♀️ added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chenchenzh @Doryphore6 and
God I wish I'd seen this at the time
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @BillHanage @chenchenzh and
I wish I could read every language the serosurveys are coming out in! Some very generous people in twitter have helped me so far, but it is quite a challenge!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @BillHanage and2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Translation software is great if you can find the study, but it's pretty hard to know, for example, that the Czech govt did a randomly sampled seroprevalence study unless you speak Czech!
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.