Stated:“Most believe .5-1.” You challenged: “Beliefs and 5-1 numbers without sources aren't scientific either.” Supporting source was provided. As repeatedly stated: if you have different numbers and different source then we would appreciate you sharing then science advances
-
-
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
He provided zero sources. My post was accurate, you came along, & assumed his info was sourced as it falls in line with your belief that is backed up by your source. You provided the source, he did not. He provided a number that I assumed without a source was out of left field.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @howrealislife @GidMK and
He provided a number consistent with the data. My hypothesis is he therefore has a high probability of having based his statement on science. I provided support for my hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that he has not based it on the science. Provide the data otherwise = opinion
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
Using your own logic his numbers were an opinion before you attempted to save the day. I'm still hoping for info that is more current than May & doesn't supposedly have the same "typos" through the article.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @howrealislife @GidMK and
That’s your unsupported hypothesis. As his numbers aligned with the data there is good probability he was aware of this data but simply didn’t share it with you. We are all hoping for more current information. Until then what I have is an IFR, based on this MA, of 0.53-0.82.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
Here's a phrase you should utilize next time someone posts info without a source (even if you agree): "Please provide a source as I'd love to see where your information comes from." I truly hope you're paid. Although not too much as they aren't getting their monies worth.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @howrealislife @GidMK and
Often do. And I did. Didn’t have to for this one as I had a source that aligned with the information. If different information is provided that doesn’t fit with what I have...then I ask. I value people’s time.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
Always good to ask regardless so you can add more sources that are actually peer reviewed & might not be as old as your own. I always assume non sourced information isn't valid. After all that is the scientific thing to do "doctor."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @howrealislife @GidMK and
And when the evidence is provided you adjust according to that evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
Yes we agree, when accurate peer reviewed up to date information is provided you adjust.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
What specific problems are there with the meta analysis? Always interested to improve the study (it's been updated 5 times so far, hence the annoying date typos)
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @howrealislife and
Dr Paul Mackey Retweeted Carl T. Bergstrom
https://twitter.com/ct_bergstrom/status/1282076519687315456?s=21 …https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1282076519687315456 …
Dr Paul Mackey added,
Carl T. BergstromVerified account @CT_BergstromThe CDC has updated their IFR estimates to a range of 0.5-0.8%, with a best guess of 0.65%. These seem reasonable to me, they reflect current consensus thinking, and I'm pleased to see this. h/t@geoffmprice https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#table-1 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.