I find this immensely frustrating There is actually not really any evidence at all that serology surveys are 'flawed' or 'dramatically underestimate' how many people have had COVID-19 Sighpic.twitter.com/Q8yWz2FHgV
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Except, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever The seroprevalence in Ischgl was 42% because it was the epicenter of the entire COVID-19 outbreak in Austria and indeed Europe!pic.twitter.com/Y1vN1OonqX
Moreover, if you actually look at the IgA vs IgG positives in the study, you'll see that there are only a tiny fraction (~4%) who are IgA positive but not IgG positive
Completely contradicting the editorial
pic.twitter.com/s1LF2DXFoE
So, the evidence that this editorial cites in favor of its argument appears to completely contradict the main point, which is...not great And yet, reported as fact As I said, sigh
More broadly, we know that the antibody tests for COVID-19 are pretty good, and probably don't miss a huge proportion of people who have actually had the disease https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2516 …pic.twitter.com/O5vRLc0yY8
I wrote this up in a rapid response to the article which has now been publishedhttps://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364/rapid-responses …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.