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.
Sure, which again is one of the reasons that we only looked at places with stable epidemics, rather than including ongoing outbreaks. Virtually all seroprevalence studies had some adjustment for test sensitivity and specificity
-
-
But I can't see the argument that there is a large element of bias in the small proportion of people who might become seronegative that are not already included in test sensitivity calculations
-
Small if done within the 1-3 months that the sensitivity calc's were derived from. But it becomes quite large after that. The calculus changes, but you're treating it as fixed. If you accounted for this somehow, apologies. Wasn't obvioushttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.
