13/n There are also still clear numeric errors remaining from previous versions of the study. For example, this number from a paper looking at people going to hospital in New York should read 44%, and not 47%pic.twitter.com/Q2lUREo20f
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
In our AGE STRATIFIED analysis, we excluded studies in which the confidence interval included 0% for age bands, because this produces a meaningless result (essentially, you get an upper bound of 100% IFR which is problematic), but that's not the same as disliking them
As for blood donors, I have laid out in detail why they are inappropriate to use as an estimate of population seroprevalence. This is not some kind of crazy, out-there point - we would not use blood donors to estimate the population prevalence of ANY disease precisely
Then their lower bound would be 0.14%; whereas yours was .5%. Same point. But glad you are open to lower prev studies. Agreed if the lower bound could likely be 0 its not meaningful
Sure, and I think as an absolute lower bound .14% across the globe isn't out of the realm of possibility. But it's certainly not a realistic estimate of the most likely IFR, which is I think quite substantially higher
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.