14/n While it is hard to know why this is still the case, again the decisions made in the paper exclusively work to suggest a lower IFR than that actually implied by most research, which is worrying
-
-
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.