Seems you might have missed this in my other reply. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4 …
-
-
Replying to @auscandoc @thereal_truther and
I didn't miss the article along with statement "this article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." Data is through May.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @howrealislife @thereal_truther and
Good thanks. Yes all the limitations you mention. Not peer reviewed yet, not approved for publication yet and authors had to stop at some point so could publish. All we have so far unfortunately. Truther has basis for his IFR statements.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @thereal_truther and
Also, it seems that May 3rd is when this was prepiblished so the data for this study that isn't peer reviewed is over two months old.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @howrealislife @thereal_truther and
That’s actually how long it _should_ take to get a paper published eh
@GidMK ? You’ve no doubt been reading the carnage from rushing to print and rushed peer review.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @thereal_truther and
If you're using non peer reviewed information why not find & utilize data that is more recent? If it's not peer reviewed at least make it somewhat current.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @howrealislife @auscandoc and
Latest update is 7th July (as you can see on medrxiv). Currently under review. Probably worth reading the paper before rubbishing it
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
The conclusion states "based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until May 2020." Did they not update their own paper with their supposedly new statistics? Maybe that's why it hasn't passed peer review?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @howrealislife @auscandoc and
Oh hey that's a typo thanks for catching. Worth noting that it's only a typo in the abstract, the actual conclusion has the correct dates
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
Click on the preview/pdf & read the actual paper you are referencing. That "typo" is in the actual conclusion.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Oh hey I should correct that then. It is my paper. Methods has the correct dates.
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.