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
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @sangfroyd
As for "large bias", I have no idea what you mean. As I said, the AB issue is in many cases built into the sensitivity assumptions of the ELISA used in most serology programs - it's not necessary to adjust for this again in the analysis as we note
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
It's not in all ELISA's and is very under-represented if sampled during height of the curve. +AB type & decay rates not adjusted for at all If you plotted your imputed IFR's compared to the median IFR's of those studies, the delta is rather large for the 5 that I checked.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sangfroyd
Sure, but describing that as "bias" is a leading statement. I would argue that taking deaths from an ongoing epidemic is "biased" in and of itself And yes, absolutely! One reason why we did not include samples taken during the height of the curve
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @sangfroyd
And, again, decay rate is usually part of sensitivity calculations. We're going around in circles here
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
That's not correct - decay rate was unknown when the sens & spec were provided They are relative to & dependent on the sampling timeframes against the curves Did you examine this? Many studies actually adjust for these. Yours is one of the few who didn't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sangfroyd
I have no idea what you mean by "were provided", we cited a number of very recent studies on exactly this point. I also don't think you've actually understood the point about test sensitivity here
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Sens & Spec "Provided by the Manufacturers" I didn't see the source provided in the Appendix or Supp Materials, it may be there, just didn't see it. The point is, whether you're in month 6 and have lost X% AB's or week 3 and haven't dev as much, matters. You didn't adj for it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sangfroyd
We're really going around in circles here. To put it another way - you calculate test sensitivity using PCR +ve cases as your benchmark, then testing serology several months later. Thus, the reduction in ABs is ~already accounted for in test sensitivity calculations~
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
To short circuit it At a macro level, you're generally showing much higher IFR's than those who conducted the studies, either you know something everyone else is missing, your you're missing something. Worth asking feedback from authors who have lower IFR's for same studies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, we're definitely emailing some of the authors. Out of interest, which 5 studies did you look at that calculated their own IFRs?
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.