21/n The Spain example is even more of a problem because the ENE-COVID (the rigorous study) implies an IFR in Barcelona of ~1% The survey of pregnant women implies ~.5% Guess which one is used?pic.twitter.com/1JO5aNfrbV
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
32/n Ioannidis has also now included some of the government-conducted studies in the paper, which is good to seepic.twitter.com/VRLXEr8geQ
33/n All in all, some definite improvements, but a lot of things still in the paper that are really hard to reconcile with best practice
34/n The one thing I would point out - this from earlier in the thread is a classic example of moving the goalposts. The influenza comparison was clearly wrong, so now we have another comparison which is bad but slightly less wronghttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1283232032085032961?s=20 …
35/n imo much better practice would be to acknowledge that COVID-19 is probably substantially more lethal than influenza, but that quantifying this difference is somewhat challenging
36/n Also, another statement that is incorrect and has remained in each version - that disadvantaged populations/settings are uncommon exceptions in the global landscape This remains simply untruepic.twitter.com/8M8QjQ6ZWv
37/n Also, you can find my personal best estimate in the paper that @LeaMerone and I authored on IFR here. A reasonable guess for most areas seems to be 0.5-0.8%https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4 …
38/n Another addition, this thread goes through some of the headaches with the paper that have remained through every version TL:DR - it's not systematic! https://twitter.com/AVG_Joseph96/status/1283236273558294528?s=20 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.