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
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 …
-
Ugh. What I've been trying to explain is that this is accounted for already in test sensitivity. It's part of the reason that you get false negatives (the main other being delay to seroconversion)!
- 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.
