1 billion people already infected is a ludicrously high estimate, where did you see that figure?
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
I was referring to by the time mass vaccinations are deployed to help crush covid worldwide / eventual natural infections I read someone at the WHO said 10% of the world was infected already and that was more than a month ago Hundreds of millions in India alone
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheEliKlein
The WHO said that "well below 10%" were infected, and it is very unlikely that hundreds of millions have been infected in India alone. You are simply parroting myths here
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
That’s just simply false and if you don’t think more than 100 million in India have been infected then you’re not looking at enough datahttps://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-archive-united-nations-54a3a5869c9ae4ee623497691e796083 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheEliKlein
Health Nerd Retweeted Marc Bevand
Yes that's simply bad reporting https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1314160523613593600?s=20 … And given the fatality rate and age breakdown, it's very unlikely that more than 100mil have been infected. Nearly 100mil perhaps
Health Nerd added,
Marc Bevand @zorinaqThe media claimed "about 10% of the global population may have been infected by the coronavirus"—eg. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/05/920453483/10-of-global-population-may-have-contracted-the-coronavirus-who-says … I investigated the claim. It's false. Bad reporting In reality "LESS than 10%" & in many situations it's "WELL UNDER 10%" of the general population 1/nShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @TheEliKlein
You can literally listen to the full interviews yourself rather that trusting the words of the anonymous account "Free Beer". It's very clear that the total global infection rate was not 10% at that point however you slice it
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Eli Klein Retweeted NowThis
I did, please listen to it too. This number is based on real data not just a hunch.https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1313610737802240001 …
Eli Klein added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheEliKlein
Spoiler: it's not. The problem with using vague, off the cuff statements from officials rather than actual numbers is that you are usually going to be wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Here’s The Economist’s review of 279 serology studies worldwide, estimating there were 630M infections globally in Sept, 2020 Point being that my 1 billion number referring to a rough ballpark of how many will be naturally infected by Covid isn’t some crazy impossibilitypic.twitter.com/P7RhUkTCih
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I've read a similar number of studies myself, and I suspect that number is very high. Looks like they've included non-representative samples in the equation, which creates a lot of bias
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @TheEliKlein
Oh no sorry, it's some sort of complex model. Would have to dig into the methodology to see why it's outputting such high figures. That being said, 630mil is only 8% of the world's population, not 10%
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Yeah I know, thing is 1 billion isn’t going to be some far fetched impossible theory. Especially is anywhere near 600m have already been infected. So that was my original point. I doubt that economist model took seroprevalence underestimating infections into account as well
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New 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.