Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    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

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      25/n For example, Geneva. The original authors calculated an IFR of 0.64%, but this is downgraded to 0.45% in the paperpic.twitter.com/lEEG7LPjez

      1 reply 2 retweets 26 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      26/n And this is not the only example. Another study tested over three weeks and found seroprevalence of 3.85%, then 8.36%, then 1.46%. Overall 3.53% The 8.36% figure is used, giving 5x more infections than the study itself found, and the lowest IFR possiblepic.twitter.com/ZeC8arsL7P

      3 replies 4 retweets 31 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      27/n Taking all this into account, let's look at the IFRs for only those studies using representative population samples that were correctly calculated

      1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      28/n Here's the revised table. The lowest IFR is, again, Ioannidis' own study, at 0.18%. Nearly half of the estimates are above 1%, and they range all the way up to 1.63% (!)pic.twitter.com/7xU7DGrq2Q

      2 replies 2 retweets 23 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      29/n Somehow, for the third time running, there are innumerable decisions made in the paper that seem to only ever push down the IFR, rather than produce the best estimate

      1 reply 8 retweets 35 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      30/n As I've outlined, there are also a number of simple errors that make this very problematic as an estimate of the IFR (or the IFR range) for COVID-19

      1 reply 2 retweets 23 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      31/n All that being said, the discussion is now MUCH better, and really engages with some of the things I (and others) discussed in previous threads. Too much to go over here, but well worth a read

      1 reply 2 retweets 24 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Jul 2020

      32/n Ioannidis has also now included some of the government-conducted studies in the paper, which is good to seepic.twitter.com/VRLXEr8geQ

      3 replies 2 retweets 17 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Luke Jostins-Dean‏ @lukejostins 15 Jul 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      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%.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    10. Luke Jostins-Dean‏ @lukejostins 15 Jul 2020
      Replying to @lukejostins @GidMK

      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%.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Jul 2020
      Replying to @lukejostins

      Huh you're right. Another mistake

      2:51 AM - 15 Jul 2020
      • 1 Like
      • Luke Jostins-Dean
      0 replies 0 retweets 1 like

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info