OK, I do owe an apology to all the critics of Ioannidis and to Ioannidis himself as I rushed to respond and failed to do justice to all sides. So - let Ioannidis speak for himself here: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf … https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1333509622263545856 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @JeanneLenzer1
That link is broken. But given your other comments I'd assume you're linking to his piece on IFR, and I would reiterate that the mistake in the SciAm piece has nothing whatsoever to do with IFR - it is about serological tests and how they work
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Replying to @GidMK @JeanneLenzer1
Sorry, that's slightly misleading. The eventual result of the problems with serological tests do impact on IFR, but it is not the primary focus of the disagreement with the SC study
1:26 PM - 30 Nov 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.