The study was published in @NatureComms last week. Headline finding was an estimate for the infection fatality rate of #SARSCoV2 of 0,36%.
That was based on 7 deaths in the community of Gangelt compared to 1956 (estimated) infections.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19509-y …
-
Show this thread
-
The reporting from
@hfeldwisch suggests that several more people of those 1956 counted in the number of infections in the study have since died of#covid19 and so should be counted when calculating the infection fatality rate.1 reply 6 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
Kai Kupferschmidt Retweeted Christian Althaus
On top of this, an IFR calculated from such a small sample comes with a lot of caveats and uncertainty. Not that helpful when there are good studies around done on much larger samples, as
@C_Althaus has pointed out in this thread:https://twitter.com/c_althaus/status/1332076519095754752?s=21 …Kai Kupferschmidt added,
Christian AlthausVerified account @C_AlthausWhat is the overall infection fatality ratio (IFR) of#SARSCoV2 in Germany? The widely discussed Gangelt study now got published in@NatureComms. There are a number of issues with its estimate of the IFR. A thread. (1/n) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19509-y …Show this thread1 reply 5 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
Main point I wanted to make here is that the infection fatality rate of
#SARSCoV2 is one of the topics that has very quickly become polarized in this pandemic. That is because lower IFR means less reason for restrictions. Two things on this:2 replies 6 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
1. In such a situation research needs to be particularly careful and well-done. That is not what we have seen. Take the questions about this Gangelt study. Or look at some of the meta-analyses from John Ioannidis, and at the excellent threads on these by
@GidMK.2 replies 6 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
2. It is kind of ironic because the estimates of IFR have been remarkably stable compared to some other things in this pandemic:
1 reply 5 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Here is
@WHO on 19.2., for instance, estimating it between 0,3 and 1% (lower estimate was actually based on a mistake and should have been higher) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf …1 reply 4 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
Here is a preprint of a meta-analysis done by
@GidMK from 7.7. estimating IFR at 0,68% (0,53-0,82) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4.full.pdf …1 reply 5 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Here is an estimate in the Lancet based on data from Geneva: 0,64% (0,38-0,98) https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30584-3.pdf …
2 replies 5 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
There is a lot of heterogeneity, of course. So this report by
@imperialcollege from 29.10. estimates two IFRs: 0.23% (0.14-0.42) in low-income countries 1.15% (0.78-1.79) in high.income countrieshttps://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-34-ifr/ …3 replies 6 retweets 36 likesShow this thread
Worth noting that the estimates of IFR by age have also been consistent throughout! Our metaregression by age found almost identical results to the Imperial report 9, which is similar to this report and other papers that have come out since
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.