The study quality isn't impacted by age breakdown. As I said, you would expect the value to vary somewhat by population. For example London (IFR ~0.5%) is lower than England (~0.8%) probably due in part to the younger age
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @Doryphore6 and
That being said, Spain and Slovenia have very similar median ages (43 vs 45) but drastically different IFRs (0.17% vs 1.15%) so clearly age isn't the only factor here
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
Thus far, most reliable estimates are around 0.5-1%. I think the point estimate from our systematic review (~0.64%) is a reasonable sense-check
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
Actually, I think that currently they are mostly underestimates - many countries are collecting death data haphazardly, and excess death counts indicate much higher numbers. It's not unlikely that, when we develop a more comprehensive estimate, the IFR will go up a lot
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
We know that they used a test with low specificity and sampled high-risk groups. Chances are it's biased, but we can't be certain until it's published
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
That's not really what the Wuhan data shows (risk of community transmission =/= prevalence), and we have a fair bit of data behind the expectation that HC workers would be at increased risk. It's also not the only reason that I've given for the IFR to be a likely underestimate
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
There are very few examples of IFR as low as 0.26%, which I've now said several times. At a certain point, it's hard not to assume that you're being disingenuous in your arguments
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.