It's coming towards the end of the year, and there are still countless people minimizing the pandemic and spreading untruths So I thought I'd do a bit of a thread of FACTS about COVID-19 1/n
-
Show this thread
-
2/n Fact 1: the death rate of COVID-19 varies substantially by age, but is high even for relatively young people For example, a 1 in 2,700 risk of death from COVID-19 for a 35 year old, based on our comprehensive paper on the topic https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10654-020-00698-1 …pic.twitter.com/lpN4W6CyKJ
18 replies 89 retweets 358 likesShow this thread -
3/n Fact 2: COVID-19 is MUCH more dangerous than influenza For younger age groups, COVID-19 may be similarly lethal. For anyone over 30, it is much worse.
@zorinaq has a nice graphic on thispic.twitter.com/e1DUdK1zcd
12 replies 128 retweets 430 likesShow this thread -
4/n Fact 3: RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 has a very low rate of false positives. This is both conceptually demonstrable https://virologydownunder.com/the-false-positive-pcr-problem-is-not-a-problem/ … And mathematical facthttps://gidmk.medium.com/most-positive-coronavirus-tests-are-true-positives-60c95fe54fec …
19 replies 78 retweets 357 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
This guy tore your analysis a new one. You never responded. Gee, I wonder why not. Add to that the problem of the CT count threshold being set way too high, and these tests are basically worthless and baselessly forcibly imprison people in their homes.https://medium.com/@toknormal/this-is-a-very-disingenuous-commentary-if-i-may-say-so-which-does-not-address-the-matter-at-hand-72172a06284f …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rmgeller
Did he? Or did he completely misrepresent the article and pronounce some gibberish as if it were fact? Hmmmmmm Anyway, that's why I never respond to comments on medium
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Calling something you don’t understand or that doesn’t fit your religion “gibberish” may work in the short term, but ultimately, it won’t make you look very good in the long run to propagate this crap and refuse to consider other perspectives—you know, like true scientists.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rmgeller
No, I mean the maths is off and the references don't support the argument
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
For example, he gets the rate of positives in the ONS testing wrong - it is not 0.8% but 0.08%, which means that the rest of the numbers are off by a factor of ten. He also strawmans my argument of MAXIMUM 0.1% to be EXACTLY 0.1%
-
-
Anyway, if you're going to insult someone online maybe check the basic maths in your reference first, to avoid looking like a silly tit
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Seems like it’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. But, wouldn’t it have been super easy to reply to him and tell him that?
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.