15/n But by far and away, the biggest error in the text is simply to do with using clearly inappropriate samples to estimate population prevalence This is a fundamental flaw in the paper, and really something of a basic epidemiological mistake
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
-
-
0.28% is double
To be fair they didn’t say upper bound. They said their best estimate is “up to” meaning there are other estimates higher and lower.
All I’m saying is your 95% CI had a lower of 0.5% (I believe), which is 3X higher than WHO and Ioannidis.
Worth examining -
I take that back. Someone else said “up to”— Dr Ryan of the WHO said ... “Our current best estimates tell us about 10 per cent of the global population may have been infected by this virus.” Where did you get your “upper bound” quote from? That’s not what was said at the mtg
- Show replies
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.
