10/n As the authors note, compliance was pretty poor. Lots of people were told to wear masks, but didn't Hard to say what this means for an individual wearing a mask 24/7pic.twitter.com/2vnN12EpVI
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
Ugh, just realized it should be 2.1-0.6 for the non-masks, which changes the numbers again to 1.54% vs 1.82%. Same general problem, an estimated 1.68% infected in the study
Sorry to be a pain, but can you check your Rogan-Gladen correction and/or the sensitivity/specificity numbers you use? When I use the formula, I get lower true prevalence. In the fully corrected version of yours, I get to 1.04% (masks) and 1.43% (control).
I'm still not excluding the pre test people tho, this is just the numbers from the main analysis
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.