The paper basically took a similar approach to our meta-analysis (they cited us as well @LeaMerone) and used the same statistical software with the few samples this gives to meta-regress estimates of age-stratified IFRpic.twitter.com/fKbmZ0zj3C
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
The paper basically took a similar approach to our meta-analysis (they cited us as well @LeaMerone) and used the same statistical software with the few samples this gives to meta-regress estimates of age-stratified IFRpic.twitter.com/fKbmZ0zj3C
They found that IFR increased exponentially by age ~regardless of the age group~ So, for example, a 40yo might be at a 0.05% risk, a 50yo a 0.14% risk, and a 60yo at a 0.5% riskpic.twitter.com/jsPVkNfn6v
As they point out, this means the disease is remarkably deadly even for middle-aged people. A risk of 5 in 1,000 of death for an otherwise-healthy 60 year old is pretty massive!pic.twitter.com/JHa3URZm4f
Amazing you can go back to Verity et al estimates based on data up to 3 March and it's ~identical.pic.twitter.com/bAInjBaOv7
But people are still writing stuff like this without addressing the age distribution of those sampled & testing positive in serological studieshttps://theprint.in/health/lift-lockdowns-protect-the-vulnerable-treat-covid-like-a-health-issue-and-not-a-disaster/466786/ …
Very interesting. Do you know if there are any similar studies on the age specific IFR for influenza? I assume it would be more of a U-shaped graph.
Oh so you mean we need to wait until the pandemic is over to assess the data collected while people are dying? Take off your blinders, buddy, these public health measures have been proven to work. Lockdowns are common sense, you don’t need studies for that./
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.