Big news! Our systematic review and meta-analysis of the age stratified IFR of COVID-19 with @BillHanage, Andy Levin, and others has now been published in the European Journal of Epidemiologyhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10654-020-00698-1 …
-
-
In other words, the population IFR of a place largely boils down to who gets infected. In Northern Italy, lots of old people got COVID-19, so the IFR was much higher than in Iceland, where it was mostly younger people!
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is there really such a thing as "Actual IFR"?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Using prevalence data from http://covid19-projections.com and cumulative fatality to date, I made a rough plot of state-wide population IFR. I wouldn't think mean age correlates with this variation. For deaths>1500/M, Spring affected states much higher IFR.pic.twitter.com/zr0CnBWtvk
-
I wouldn't think mean age difference between states explains this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Re: "The other big thing we found was that the age breakdown of places almost entirely explained (~90%) the observed variance in population IFR" It actually goes above 90%, once Portugal and NYS are removed for using less representative sampling.https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1336482738925416453 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I used your paper as a comparison to the CFR for my US state of Wisconsin. The age dependence trend is right on! But since this is CFR, I figure the true IFR must be at least a factor of two lower. Do you have any thoughts on what might contribute to lower than expected IFRs?pic.twitter.com/H2JMRH9BRo
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.