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. 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
    2. 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
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @sangfroyd

      In our AGE STRATIFIED analysis, we excluded studies in which the confidence interval included 0% for age bands, because this produces a meaningless result (essentially, you get an upper bound of 100% IFR which is problematic), but that's not the same as disliking them

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @sangfroyd

      As for blood donors, I have laid out in detail why they are inappropriate to use as an estimate of population seroprevalence. This is not some kind of crazy, out-there point - we would not use blood donors to estimate the population prevalence of ANY disease precisely

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    5. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @sangfroyd

      Important to note - this does not make blood donor studies USELESS. They are great for sentinel surveillance to monitor and track trends. But we can actually demonstrate numerically that they are inadequate to estimate population prevalence of COVID-19

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    6. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 15 Oct 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      Didn’t say crazy. Just somewhat subjective & biases / weights you towards larger studies that tend to gravitate toward heavier hit / high IFR regions Several of your peers disagree, including Ioannidis. You may be right, you may be wrong. But its extreme to call it an error

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

      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

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

      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.

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

      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/ 

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

      It would seem Ioannidis, the peer review team, and the WHO disagree with you. Perhaps you should explain this to them. 😉 Make sure to reiterate to the chair of Stanford Epidemiology that this is a basic mistake.

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

      It is rather odd to see such basic mistakes published in a journal, and I am indeed very confused that a researcher of his calibre was the one who made them. Bizarre indeed

      10:31 PM - 15 Oct 2020
      • 1 Like
      • Denken, dann tweeten
      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        1. New conversation
        2. Josh Ketter‏ @sangfroyd 15 Oct 2020
          Replying to @GidMK

          As basic as selecting a 4-5 wk post measurement window to capture 95% of fatalities related to the sero sample while also pulling in 80% of fatalities from infections that occurred in the 4-5 wks post measurement? Thereby inflating fatalities from inf not captured in the sample?

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

          Not at all, that was extremely carefully done and not at all basic. We explain why it was necessary in the paper

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

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