25/n Indeed, in every location where both a non-probabilistic, convenience sample has been taken (not just blood donors) AS WELL AS a well-done population estimate, the convenience sample overestimates the seroprevalence
-
-
37/n (As a start, there is now a representative population estimate from Wuhan out that implies an IFR SUBSTANTIALLY lower than the ones inferred in this paper from samples including hospitalized patients)
Show this thread -
38/n Regardless, the main take-home remains, unfortunately, that this paper is overtly wrong in a number of ways, it does not adhere to even the most basic guidelines for this type of research, and thus the point estimate is probably wrong
Show this thread -
39/n Sorry, typo in tweet 37 - should read an IFR SUBSTANTIALLY *higher*, not lower. The SEROPREVALENCE is lower (at ~2%) which implies an IFR of ~1.2%
Show this thread -
40/n Oh, on an unrelated sidenote, it's quite funny that the author spends some time arguing that using a median is more appropriate than doing a R-E meta-analysis (as
@LeaMerone and I did), so I quickly calculated the median for our study and it is higher at 0.79% for IFR
pic.twitter.com/QTkJKNzMnb
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.