7/n There are also still obvious errors in the paper. Ioannidis claims that the Spanish seroprevalence estimate cannot be included because it has only been published as a press release This is wrongpic.twitter.com/HlwMLV5mGa
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
18/n Here, Ioannidis is comparing the IFR of influenza used by the CDC - which is ~0.1% - to the IFR of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence studies These two figures, however, are not comparable
19/n The IFR estimate for influenza generated by the CDC is the result of a complex modelling process that inflates the numerator (deaths) according to hospitalization data for pneumonia and other ICD codespic.twitter.com/YMS8AkDyh7
20/n Why is this a problem? Well, we are not comparing apples with apples here. Numerous efforts have demonstrated that the death count of COVID-19 in many places is a significant underestimate (by 50%+)pic.twitter.com/vR5VxuCUFg
21/n If we instead compare the IFR of influenza calculated from seroprevalence studies and official death counts to the same for COVID-19, we see a VERY different picture
22/n The HIGHEST IFR estimate for influenza using this methodology, based on a 2014 systematic review, is 0.01% That's 18x lower than the lowest reasonable estimate of COVID-19 IFRhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/ …
23/n More broadly, if we look at the total range, the IFR of COVID-19 calculated from seroprevalence data appears to be around 50-100x higher than the same number for influenza
24/n This is actually a serious flaw with the paper - the author has chosen only to pursue corrections of the data that push the IFR lower. If we were to account for excess mortality attributable to COVID-19 - based on published research - the IFRs would all jump substantially
25/n Now, there are some excellent improvements to the paper For example, much of the language in the discussion/conclusion has been correctedpic.twitter.com/KkVboq3eDO
26/n There are still odd, emotive phrases ("blind lockdown"), but the paper no longer describes COVID-19 as common and mild, which was clearly incorrect
27/n However, overall this paper still suffers from many of the issues I previously raised, and seems to still substantially underestimate the IFR of COVID-19
28/n I should be clear that I am not speculating in any way about the reasoning behind these decisions. The fact that the paper underestimates IFR is a problem, but we can't really know why these decisions were made
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.