22/n Now, all of this collinearity is particularly troubling for that 0.27% estimate that I mentioned way back at the start of the thread
-
-
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
Show this thread -
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 …
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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 …Show this thread -
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 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The reporting of the ONS Infection Survey is off too. The study population is England, not the UK, which based on the DHSC death counts (which the pre-print uses) pushes the IFR up to 0.83%.
-
It also isn't clear to me why they use ONS data for the prevalence but DHSC data for the deaths. The ONS death estimates up to 15/5 are 41 033 (compared to 30 908 up to 17/5 for DHSC), which would give an IFR of 1.11%.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Just saying, The Israeli Study was small, non-random, and used a low quality serology assay with 85% sensitivity and 95% specificity. http://midaat.org.il/2020/06/05/serological-survey-study/ …
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.