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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
No response. Still stand by your retweet I suppose. Intellectual dishonesty. Can’t follow such biased so-called scientists.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @avtansh
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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 
7:31 PM - 19 Dec 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.