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
-
Show 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
Amy Riegelman (pronounced Riggleman) Retweeted Amy Riegelman (pronounced Riggleman)
Also, I'm not a fan of solo-authored systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Another person should be blindly screening studies. I'm interested in your thoughts on this,
@GidMK.https://twitter.com/amylibrarian/status/1262807221689344001?s=20 …Amy Riegelman (pronounced Riggleman) added,
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
I agree! I'm very fortunate to be working with the brilliant @LeaMerone on our systematic review 
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.