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
-
Show this thread
-
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 likesShow this thread -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 examining1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
Replying to @sangfroyd
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 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.