I think the ones you mention (Faroe, Singapore, Qatar) are wildly out of line with the results of several extensive seroprevalence surveys. I'm not saying they are wrong. I am saying if they are right someone should have a coherent theory as to why they are so different.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Brian_Orak @greg_travis and
Yes indeed, and actually this is quite well explained by our recent meta-analysis of IFR by age: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v4 … If you use the predicted IFRs here, Qatar is actually a touch higher than expected given that >50% of their infections are <40yo
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Brian_Orak @greg_travis and
In terms of expected vs observed, yes. The ~majority~ (>50%) of infections in Qatar were of immigrant workers aged 20-39, whose fatality rate based on our study is ~0.01-0.04%. I'd imagine that they have around 4x the reported infections, given the deaths
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Brian_Orak @greg_travis and
I'm only talking IFRs here. If you're interested, you can read our paper above, it is a metaregression of IFR by age
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
That's what I would expect given the age breakdown of the infections. Like I said, MORE THAN 50% of their infections are in people aged 39 or below Turns out the best way to have a low IFR is to mostly infect young immigrant workers!
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.