That's a property of the model, infections are calculated from deaths and the IFR is the scaling factor used. The lower the IFR, the more infections, the higher the HIT. The 1.08% IFR from the original paper (likely much more accurate) gives a 3.9% HIT (not credible)
-
-
A simpler version: approx 5m people showed antibodies (ONSseroprevalence data). 50000 Covid deaths. IFR 1%. This however ignores several studies showing T cell activity without antibodies in a 2:1 ratio. Suggests IFR 0.3%. Have I missed something?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I haven't seen any studies suggesting 67% of infected people don't sero-convert. The ENE-COVID study suggested 88-92% seroconverted (https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931483-5 …). Have you got links?
@bealelab@ScienceShared@CovidSerology@zorinaq@InCytometry does this seem realistic to you?3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @johnmcclean_ie @Bernp1953P and
I believe the ~90% seroconversion rather than the 35% one. I am not aware of any immunomodulatory activity of the virus that would drive seroconversion as low as 35%.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InCytometry @johnmcclean_ie and
The important thing with T cells vs Humoural response is that it is not one thing or t'other, it is normally both.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @InCytometry @johnmcclean_ie and
Well the first study was from the Karolinska Institute. All seroprevalence has shown significant antibody decline after 6 weeks or so post infection. Therefore random studies will not detect older infected cases?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Bernp1953P @InCytometry and
That study didn't show that, it used sensitive T cell test and relatively insensitive antibody test(s) – and not at a point where you'd expect everyone to have seroconverted.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
-
Replying to @Bernp1953P @bealelab and
FWIW I'm not claiming an IFR of 1%, just that it is a better fit for Spring than 0.3%. This is one of the best papers on IFRs by
@GidMK and@BillHanage. The 0.3% came from a blog entry / article from CEBM on IFRs falling overtime & is not age adjustedhttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v5 …3 replies 3 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @johnmcclean_ie @Bernp1953P and
Ивáн Инград Retweeted Ивáн Инград
I have seen 0'3% at more places than just one article from CEBM. Like those 6 papers:https://twitter.com/ivaningrad/status/1302036434891804672?s=20 …
Ивáн Инград added,
Ивáн Инград @ivaningradReplying to @ivaningrad @kikollan and 4 othershttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.31.20118554v4 … https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116 … https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3/fulltext … https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090076v2 … https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3 … https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244v1 …4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Most of those studies actually have an IFR above 0.3%, so that's incorrect (and also a bit cherry-picked) More systematically, we found that most of the IFRs in Europe were substantially higher https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v5 …https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4 …
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.