12/n Studies with inappropriate samples to infer population IFR (such as the Kobe study) are still in there, while random, population-wide estimates (i.e. Spain) are excluded
-
-
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.