Ok, I'm inspired by @MicrobiomDigest to do a bit of actual critical appraisal on this new paper by Raoult et al
There are significant issues that in my opinion make it basically worthless as an estimate of anything 1/nhttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1270163967634096128 …
-
-
Tangential question... If something kills half the population (i.e. CVD), isn't it impossible to have a relative risk above 2? And, wouldn't even the smallest increase in relative risk affect millions of people, potentially?
-
No and yes. You could conceivably have a sub-population where CVD killed 10% of people and another where it killed 90%, so an RR of 9, but still a population death rate of 50%
- Show replies
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.
Sure thing, I can leave a comment. Will take a while to write tho, the thread is just a summary (there are more issues -_-)