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.
-
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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
I doubt it. These very low IFRs are situationally dependent - you need a large group of young healthy people who are unable to effectively quarantine and so have massive disease spread (Singapore and Qatar). Not many places like that in the world
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.