This (https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1336525685838340096?s=20 …) being retweeted by @GidMK is surprising. I remember him dissing IFR studies which relied on blood donors as not being representative of population. Seems a similar logic isn’t applicable for a study to calculate epidemic size. Cherry picking. Sad.
Lol, I don't see every tweet particularly when it's night time in Sydney. My response would've been about the nuance of prediction and the difference between a biased sample for the calculation of a specific metric and sentinel surveillance in a large outbreak
-
-
But since I'm a biased, intellectually dishonest, so-called scientist, instead of a more detailed explanation I'll just wish you a good day and goodbye forever
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I still think that’s a significant point which should have been mentioned as a qualifier while citing this study. However, sadly, that wasn’t done by most experts. I’ve loved your analysis otherwise - But this omission was quite bothersome. And then media runs with the headlines.
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.