30/n Nigeria, for example, has a median age of 18 years. Less than 10% of the population is over 55. Given how much lower the risk is for younger people, harsher restrictions may not make as much sensehttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6 …
-
Show this thread
-
31/n Conversely, the U.S. has a much older population, on average, and thus is at far greater risk from COVID-19 generally
1 reply 6 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
32/n That being said, this piece appears to use inappropriate evidence, misleading comparisons, and generally underestimate the risk/impact of COVID-19, which makes it problematic as a resource
3 replies 7 retweets 66 likesShow this thread -
33/n As one final example, the author makes this statement in the conclusion, that measures taken to halt the pandemic are essentially destroying the world The reference? His own opinion piece in the Boston Readerpic.twitter.com/yUsFmyAWEO
8 replies 8 retweets 84 likesShow this thread -
34/n I just checked, and Ioannidis cites himself 8 times in this paper, with 4 of those references being media or commentary articles
3 replies 9 retweets 98 likesShow this thread -
35/n Oh also, on another note, given the relatively few meta-studies on COVID-19 IFR, it appears that the authors that Ioannidis here describes as "inexperienced" and "overtly wrong" are me and
@LeaMerone Academic civility!pic.twitter.com/CRV0VElQfh
8 replies 10 retweets 89 likesShow this thread -
36/n I should also note - some people have pointed out that the actual numbers in this review are almost certainly inaccurate (e.g. 1.5 mil COVID-19 deaths over 5 years is probably impossible) but I have not focused on the numbers themselves...
1 reply 1 retweet 25 likesShow this thread -
37/n ...thing is, the numbers are largely a result of the assumptions. If you extrapolate out an assumed incorrectly low death rate then you'll find the numbers are low Therefore, I focused on the assumptions, because the numbers themselves are just a consequence of these
1 reply 1 retweet 26 likesShow this thread -
38/n That being said, it is absolutely worth pointing out that some of these figures that the paper has postulated as reasonable are extraordinarily unlikely and show how the errors have caused a misleading result (remember, this is globally over 5 years!)pic.twitter.com/GoFDd6x2Rn
5 replies 3 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Frailty has a very specific meaning in epi, and it is not "people in nursing homes". The number for "frail elderly people" is probably far higher depending which criteria you use. Another error
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.