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 
-
-
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 -
Replying to @GidMK @Doryphore6 and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Doryphore6 @MagnetsOh and
Again, that list is wildly disingenuous. Several acknowledged (by the authors themselves!) overestimates, several that are higher than 0.26%, two that are very trivially explained by age differences, etc. Slovenia is the one reliable estimate you've got there
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Of seroprevalence
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.