This is disappointing, and worrying In our IFR meta-analysis, studies with poor/unclear methodology had consistently higher estimates of seroprevalence (and thus lower IFR) than randomized, well-conducted researchhttps://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1285696432478052355 …
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Random question (sorry if u and your co-author
@LeaMerone already thought of this): Given collinearity, would a diagram akin to those below help for showing multiple results for a region?: "collinearity" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4.full.pdf … https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7289569/ … https://web.archive.org/web/20200717002901/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.30.20117531v1.full.pdf …pic.twitter.com/SJU0tFzUW8
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We were thinking of adding something like that, but haven't gotten around to it. I did look at the percentage infected vs IFR, but haven't included it in the actual analysis yet
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.