A recalculation in the works!
-
-
Replying to @healthcare_19 @GidMK and
Victorian Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Tracker Retweeted Victorian Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Tracker
Victorian Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Tracker added,
Victorian Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Tracker @healthcare_19Conclusion: Healthcare workers have been **4.37 times** more likely to contract COVID in the last month than non-HCW using the DHHS criteria. Tell me again we're not contracting this through our work pic.twitter.com/kBl31dwAiMShow this thread1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @healthcare_19 @venessb and
I mean, there are still issues? For one thing, those are odds ratios so 4.37 times is not technically correct. Also, likely to be a big Melbourne bias given that healthcare workers are over-represented in the city where most of the cases have been
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The concentration of doctors and cases in the city is indeed higher - but in the same vein the proportion of both doctors and cases in the country is lower - they are proportionate so this does not explain the effect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @healthcare_19 @venessb and
Yes but your denominator is everyone in Vic. So the fact that more doctors are cases could just be because more doctors live in the city as a proportion. It also includes non-workers from what I can see, which may explain the discrepancy
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The denominator is the total susceptible population - both workers and non-workers. It must include both, otherwise cases in children and aged care would be excluded
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @healthcare_19 @venessb and
Mmmm but if cases are more common in workers generally, then that might explain the higher OR. Similarly, if cases are more common in Melb than elsewhere in Vic, that could explain the OR as well. Lots of potential confounders
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's hard to tease those out, but the non-HCW population has been buoyed by significant outbreaks in aged care and schools. If you compared only the workers to HCW the effect would actually be much larger.pic.twitter.com/nJdxguqvL5
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @healthcare_19 @venessb and
Would it? Lots of outbreaks in meat packing plants too. I'm not sure this sort of analysis can really prove much tbh, so many potential confounders
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not trying to give a precise est of HCW risk - what this analysis adds is that this is out of keeping with gen pop CT rate. If our workplace practices are perfect there should be zero added risk from work as a HCW, and we would have equal opportunity + rates as non-HCW
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
My point is that it doesn't, really. I'm not saying anything is safe or unsafe, merely that this analysis doesn't really tell you whether HCWs are at higher risk in Vic than comparable non-HCQ counterparts, or whether this risk is higher than what you'd expect
-
-
Thanks, you've given me a new hypothesis to test.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.