Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    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

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Oct 2020

      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

      1 reply 10 retweets 139 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Oct 2020

      16/n Some of these studies are just so clearly inappropriate to infer a population estimate that it doesn't really require explaining. Samples of a single business in a city, or inpatient dialysis unitspic.twitter.com/CTWnw0Fbjf

      1 reply 9 retweets 102 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Oct 2020

      18/n Then we have blood donors, who again may give an erroneous result. These are people who, DURING A PANDEMIC are happy to go out and about and give blood. It is quite possible that they are MORE likely to have been infected than the general population!pic.twitter.com/0ME5x1br1B

      4 replies 5 retweets 101 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Oct 2020

      18.5/n There are also a lot of included studies from places in which there is almost certainly an enormous undercount of deaths For example, India, where the official death counts may represent a substantial underestimatehttps://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2859 …

      2 replies 11 retweets 92 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Oct 2020

      19/n A very basic, reasonable thing to do would be to conduct a sensitivity analysis excluding these biased estimates, to see what happens when you only use representative population estimates Which we can do

      1 reply 1 retweet 80 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 14 Oct 2020

      20/n If we take the median of only these somewhat good-quality studies (some of them still aren't great, but at least they're not clearly inappropriate), we get a value of 0.5% Double the estimate of 0.27%pic.twitter.com/tQSICfngT9

      2 replies 13 retweets 111 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      Actually it's 0.44% You ignored 65% of the studies & 94% of those under 0.2% While ppl can disagree on blood donors being included vs. not; ignoring studies w/ lower prev also bias's IFR towards heavier hit regions. Higher prev may indicate a more susceptible community.pic.twitter.com/t4SSxvzprQ

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @sangfroyd @GidMK

      Moreover the best estimate from WHO is 10% infected WW. at 1.1M deaths plus a little lag, / 770M ... = ~0.2% IFR Much closer to Ioannidis meta than yours I suspect your aversion to blood donor & low prev, biases you towards the worse performing regions that are most studied

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @sangfroyd

      That is incorrect. The WHO said the UPPER ESTIMATE for those infected is 10%, a more plausible reading is less than that I have no aversion to low prevalence studies, and indeed included many of them in my own meta-analysis 👍

      2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
    10. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      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

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @sangfroyd

      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

      8:26 PM - 15 Oct 2020
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 15 Oct 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          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

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 15 Oct 2020
          Replying to @sangfroyd @GidMK

          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

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info