I think that this article by @PeteJamison looks at professor John Ioannidis and his statements during the pandemic, but leaves a few of them out
So I thought I'd just tweet out some things said in papers that prof Ioannidis has written this year 1/nhttps://twitter.com/hswapnil/status/1339308701048594434 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/n Note: these are all from published or preprinted research, and I'm directly screenshotting so you can read the words for yourself
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
3/n Back in May, from the original preprint of the IFR paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v1.full.pdf … "the worldwide IFR of COVID-19...may be in the same ballpark as...influenza (0.1%, 0.2% in a bad year)" This was a mistake (the IFR of flu is not 0.1-0.2%)pic.twitter.com/sAtTTdCr4J
4 replies 3 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
4/n From the same paper, the idea that COVID-19 may have infected 200 million people by May 12th, and the updated versions with the exact same claim (although the date changes)pic.twitter.com/xslRexrc5o
2 replies 2 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
5/n Also from the same paper, the idea that the herd immunity threshold is probably far lower than traditional models, a conjecture that has since been proven falsepic.twitter.com/k3t9pciJyR
4 replies 2 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
This seems to be based on the ideas in Gomes et al. In what way has it been proven false?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239079/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IvanWerning @GidMK
I don't think the concept has been proven false, but there have been several places (Manaus, Iquitos, etc.) where antibody surveys have shown 60%+ infection rates
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @foxjust @IvanWerning
There are now quite a number of places across the world with levels of infection far exceeding the proposed herd immunity threshold of 10-20%, and many exceeding even the ~40% numbers as well
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Another study was released yesterday, for example, from Iran. Infection numbers up to ~70% in some regions https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30858-6/fulltext …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Thanks. The estimated regional variability is astounding. If it's true underlying differences (not sample) then they could be very different, e.g. higher composition of risky jobs, higher R? In that case, can we use them to think about herd threshold for other regions?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I think to a certain extent it may just be the inherent stochasticity of the epidemic - some places were hit earlier than others (this survey was done in May/June). I also suspect that there is something in the timing of when different places started seeing an exponential rise
-
-
That being said, it's a bit speculative. Hard to say precisely what differentiates all of these regions without a lot of knowledge of Iran I think
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @IvanWerning
I've to think ability to work from home plays some role. It's something a significant share of people in rich countries can do that seems much less tenable even in middle-income countries
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.