3 - London While the testing hasn't been published formally, the estimates appear to be that 17% of the city had antibodies mid-May So, cumulative incidence of ~1.5million people by 13thhttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30247-2/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header …
-
Show this thread
-
Now, extracting an IFR from these figures is a bit of a headache, because England only publishes specific information on COVID-19 deaths in hospitals, but the deaths appear to be 5,644 on this date from that source
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Given that ~75% of London COVID-19 deaths occur in hospitals, that means ~7,500 deaths and ~1.5mil cases, so an IFR of ~0.5% for London
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
We can also look at the whole UK IFR from this data ~5% of the country infected gives ~3,332,500 infections 24,000 deaths in-hospital gives ~32,000 deaths Therefore overall IFR is 32k/3.3mil = 0.96% IFR
3 replies 3 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
(Apologies, above tweet should say IFR for the whole of ENGLAND, not the UK. This data is from the ONS testing in England, and the death reports from England as well)
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
4 - Belgium New preprint estimates seroprevalence in Belgium as of April 26th at ~6% Population of Belgium - 11,460,000, so ~690,000 infections Implies an IFR of 1.1%pic.twitter.com/g3cHlGhsw5
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
This is using death data from the 30th of April to again crudely account for right-censoring
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Another new estimate - the authors of the Geneva seroprevalence study have age-corrected their data and come to an IFR of 0.64%https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.10.20127423v1 …
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
Second stage of Indiana serology testing has come back, implying 1.5% of the population had been infected (and 0.6% was currently infected) with COVID-19 by 8th June That's 2.1% of 6,732,000 people, or 141,000 infectionspic.twitter.com/Ejq4MmA7Kf
3 replies 3 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Am I reading this wrong or is phase 2 showing fewer people had/have covid-19 than phase 1? Should they be added together or something? Phase 1 = 2.8% Phase 2 = 2.1%
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Nope you're reading correctly. Might be to do with the variance expected of serology or differences in the samples (the more recent serology was random selection apparently)
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
That seems extremely odd to me given the timeframe between each phase. Have you seen this happen from other states or countries from a study from the same group? I know the tests aren't perfect, but wow. Interested to see your weighting for each phase for your IFR calculation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nice_shot_jk
Nope. In general the % positive from serology has gone up over time, this is the first time I've seen it go down
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.