While there's not much information I could find online, the governor said that they were targeting high-risk groups like HC workers and first responders - selection bias
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
Oh absolutely, although I'm not sure I agree that blood donors would have a lower prevalence. But I think in this case it's fairly uncontroversial to say that the estimate of 0.26% is likely biased downwards and the true figure is probably quite a bit higher
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
I agree that there are lower estimates - in large part, this is likely age-related (I.e. Singapore). But in this case, for Florida, I think we can say with some certainty that an IFR of 0.26% would be an underestimate
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
The .8 wasn't based on this specific example, so that's just a straw man. I think the lowest estimate from a well-done study currently is Slovenia, at 0.17%. The highest is from the excellent Spanish seroprevalence study is 1.15%, although the Danish sample is 0.5-1.7%
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Well, the Miami-Dade seroprevalence estimate was reportedly random, but their test specificity was worryingly low (~90%), which means that the confidence interval for prevalence in the county would include 0% (and therefore the IFR CI would include the CFR)pic.twitter.com/NDPUvcteTy
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.