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 …
He's since clarified in a number of interviews. As to the specific global IFR, it depends on the age groups that are infected, as we demonstrated in our newer reviewhttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6 …
-
-
If you plug those numbers into the global age breakdown, you get an IFR of ~0.7% for the world. But it's almost certain that younger people (living in developing nations) are being infected more than older, so I'd guess it's a bit lower globally
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.

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