32/n Wrong! In fact, the difference here is entirely explained by age! In Qatar, infections have mostly been limited to the immigrant worker population (<40 years), with this group representing more than 50% of infectionshttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1300938689535565824?s=20 …
-
Show this thread
-
33/n Since this group is at a very low risk of death from COVID-19, the population IFR is MUCH lower than in Spain, where infections among the elderly have been much more common
1 reply 2 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
34/n All of these errors are a shame, because to a certain extent I agree with the author IFR is NOT a fixed category. In the metaregression linked above in the thread, we demonstrated that ~90% of variation in IFR between regions was probably due to the age of those infected!pic.twitter.com/fj0k5oyW2B
2 replies 10 retweets 69 likesShow this thread -
35/n Unfortunately, Prof Ioannidis appears not to have read this study, but if you are interested here is the preprint version to perusehttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6 …
1 reply 3 retweets 57 likesShow this thread -
36/n Anyway, there are numerous errors remaining in the text that I haven't pointed out, but if you've reached this far in the thread I'm sure you're tired of me telling them to you straight up. Have a really careful look and see if you can find them!
1 reply 0 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
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)
2 replies 0 retweets 36 likesShow 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
5 replies 6 retweets 74 likesShow 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%
3 replies 1 retweet 49 likesShow 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
12 replies 1 retweet 70 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK @LeaMerone
Very nice thread. Thanks. Have you seen any IFR studies that compensate for the seroreversion phenomenon?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
We actually control for that in our age-stratified IFR paper - we compared our seroprevalence estimates with PCR-based IFRs from countries with sufficiently good track and trace systems and found that they are very consistenthttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6 …
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.