26/n We have a new paper that we're working on that suggests that using such estimates will usually overstate the true seroprevalence by a factor of about 2x Which means the true IFR would be double the number computed from such studies
-
-
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 -
-
-
Salam, you can read it here:
@GidMK: John Ioannidis, of "Most Published Research Findings Are False" fame, has now had his paper on IFR published… https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1316511734115385344.html … Share this if you think it's interesting.
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.