Two reasons I've thought might explain this (speculative): 1. Higher % with antibodies means harder-hit hospital system, therefore higher IFR 2. Lower % more prey to false positives, overestimating prevalence and thus underestimating IFR
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What about the possibility that with higher spread efforts of the vulnerable to avoid exposure break down, this altering the case mix?
-
“Thus altering the case mix?”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Some of those CIs though .... heck, all of them, really.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also noticed that. My guesses: Overwhelmed hospitals (some may not get the treatment they need and health care workers cannot take care as much anymore). Second guess: If it's spreading heavily in the wild it's even more difficult to shield more vulnerable ppl.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe a genetic reason? Susceptible populations may similarly get infected more and die more often. Or the higher the numbers, the more likely it.hits susceptibles?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Re: "2. Lower % more prey to false positives, overestimating prevalence and thus underestimating IFR" For those who want some more context: https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1278468845615738880 …pic.twitter.com/ErAqqMJE5n
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is one reason computing the global ifr seems almost pointless. Shouldn't the question be...what is likely ifr if my state, region has an outbreak? Your age-stratified ifrs would seem to provide more accurate info on that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.