Well @GidMK meta-study claiming global IFR of 0.68% was misleading because it mixed ‘modelling’ studies and antibody studies, nursing homes and general population, early and late phase IFRs and several methodological mistakes.
-
-
Replying to @venivici27 @federicolois
It wasn't a global IFR per se, merely an aggregated estimate using the best evidence at the time. Our more recent research builds on this with age-stratification that largely explains the differences that we could not in the original studyhttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v7 …
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
It’s still wrong. There are states with lower *CFR* with your age stratification with months of data behind it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Which ones?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
NJ/NY
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That is incorrect. The metaregression explains both of those states remarkably well. Have you read the paper?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Should probably look a little closer at their actual data instead of regressions, then.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Lol. We used the *actual data* to generate the meta-regression. Within which the numbers fit very well, as this figure shows. Which you would know, if you had read the paperpic.twitter.com/0bgxYl16B8
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yea ok. NJ has 0 deaths between 5 and 17, but you show no data on 0 at the y axis.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yep, under the age of 1 there is too little data to make a firm prediction. Under 10, the numbers are inferred using a relatively small number of studies, but 0 deaths is entirely in line with our predictions. Again, you would know this if you bothered to read the paper
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Anyway, I'm going to mute this thread now, but my modest suggestion would be that if you're going to argue with someone about their paper you should have the common decency to at least read it first, otherwise you'll end up looking very silly indeed
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.