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 31 Aug 2020

      Using our bog-standard Herd Immunity Threshold calculation, which requires 70% of people to become infected, we get just over 3 million deaths required to reach herd immunitypic.twitter.com/UgiZSL8SYO

      10 replies 104 retweets 219 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 31 Aug 2020

      Now, this requires something that we actually don't see - for the older age group to be infected as often as the young This isn't very common for COVID-19

      4 replies 15 retweets 102 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 31 Aug 2020

      If we instead assume that people >65 are infected a bit less, and those >80 are infected a LOT less (in line with current trends), we get a perhaps more realistic figure of 1.76 million deaths in the U.S. before herd immunitypic.twitter.com/tSpxwwko4X

      6 replies 37 retweets 153 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 31 Aug 2020

      "But wait!", I hear some people cry, "The herd immunity threshold is lower than 70%!" Well, maybe. If we reduce the threshold to 20%, which is one of the lowest figures proposed, we see either 880,000 or 504,000 deaths depending on who gets infectedpic.twitter.com/uciCBcJUiL

      9 replies 28 retweets 130 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 31 Aug 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      That's because you're using a very high IFR that doesn't appear to map back to median Serological Studies. I hope you aren't still using the "modeled IFR's" from March

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 31 Aug 2020
      Replying to @sangfroyd

      Not at all - I gave the citation for the age-specific IFR right at the start of the thread. Second tweet

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 31 Aug 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      Thx, didn't see it. Glad you did a sero specific meta Doesn't look like you adj for: 1) Time for AB's to form (~2 wks) 2) Type of AB's in the test (IgM, IgG, IgA, etc.) 3) Decay rates for AB's -- we know they don't last that long + 4 wks of fatalities post meas is long

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 31 Aug 2020
      Replying to @sangfroyd

      We delve into all of this in the methods and supplementaries, including the 4 week decision and the time for antibodies to form

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 31 Aug 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      I read that, but no mention of any adjustments for AB undercount bias And the 4 wk time didn't account for overlap with fatalities from infections post-measurement date Why didn't you use fatalities by "date of death" instead of date of report? You could nix your extra 7 days

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 31 Aug 2020
      Replying to @sangfroyd @GidMK

      Basically all your IFR estimates are higher than the leading papers for the studies you cite. Most were written before we knew how quickly AB's go below detectable levels (particularly in asympto's) Did you reach out to the rep's for these studies to compare your IFR calc?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 31 Aug 2020
      Replying to @sangfroyd

      That's actually not true. In some cases ours are lower (i.e. Geneva), depends on how they calculated IFR. AB undercount is something of a concern, but as we note it is built into the sensitivity calculations for many tests and therefore in many cases already accounted for

      10:01 PM - 31 Aug 2020
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 31 Aug 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          Geneva looks practically the same - 0.64% https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3/fulltext … Others are 60-100% higher. i.e. Sweden Doing a secondary sensitivity analysis for AB vs. adjusting for it as a primary median are very different. You did it for fatalities, but not AB, which creates large bias.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 31 Aug 2020
          Replying to @sangfroyd

          Some are indeed higher - as I said, it depends on how IFR was calculated in those papers. We used a standard methodology which was elucidated in the paper for all calculations

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies

      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