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 …
Not at all. I think it's quite uncontroversial to say inferring directly from a biased sample to population prevalence is an error. Ioannidis justifies this by arguing that the bias will favor a higher IFR, but as I've demonstrated that is an incorrect assumption
-
-
I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that at all. Two examples is not conclusive proof. Perhaps look to past pandemics for larger samples of data. It passed peer review and the WHO — which doesn’t mean much anymore. But certainly means “uncontroversial“ is a stretch.
-
Not at all. This is fairly basic epidemiology, of the sort you get in a first-year course. Those two samples were elucidative - I have a dozen or so more, but the thread was already quite long. Some reading if you're interested on the question of biashttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22742910/
- 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.
