Not sure if you've seen the IFR meta-study. They came up with a simple IFR formula based on many IFR studies...it's the black line on this graph and the source is shown on the graph. All consistent with your great work. Thxpic.twitter.com/Bkk8CwsdyC
Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Not sure if you've seen the IFR meta-study. They came up with a simple IFR formula based on many IFR studies...it's the black line on this graph and the source is shown on the graph. All consistent with your great work. Thxpic.twitter.com/Bkk8CwsdyC
He did include it (I'm a co-author on the meta-study) it's the "Levin" line on the original graph 
https://github.com/mbevand/covid19-age-stratified-ifr … says that "The overall IFR estimates of COVID-19, with the exception of Levin et al., are relatively consistent with each other, usually within 30-40%. Levin et al. is often up to 2-fold higher than the others". What's the main reason for this discrepancy?
I don't think that's true actually. Our top range for the 80+ is a bit higher, but broadly all of the estimates that are aggregates rather than from a single sample are very similar
They do look similar in the figure, but I think the quote refers to the age-integrated estimates for different countries as listed in the Table. E.g. for Italy: ENE-COVID / COVID: US CDC /COVID: Verity / COVID: Levin 1.065 /1.092 / 1.382 / 2.177 This does look different.
Atomsk's Sanakan Retweeted Atomsk's Sanakan
Re: "ENE-COVID" As noted, ENE-COVID leaves out nursing home deaths. https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1332799077122248706 … The CDC analysis leaves out those 80 and older. https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1310242459235090434 … Verity et al. worked from the Diamond Princess, and under-estimated deaths therehttps://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1289061193471201281 …
Atomsk's Sanakan added,
Hmm. Thanks. I am a bit confused about ENE-COVID because here in Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext … I don't see any mentions of the nursing home deaths excluded... but here in BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509 … they are indeed stated as excluded.
Levin et al. includes an IFR for Spain where nursing home deaths are put back in. That gave an IFR of ~1.9%, given the death lag used in Levin et al. for confirmed deaths. The BMJ ENE-COVID paper instead gave an IFR of ~0.8%. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509 … https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 …pic.twitter.com/bex9gzjLe3
I don't understand how Levin et al. got 1.9% for Spain. Seroprevalence was 5.0%, that's 2.3 mln people: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext …. Cumulative covid fatalities even 5 weeks later were only 28k (Table 2 in Levin et al.) That's IFR=1.2%. Even when I take 40k excess deaths, I get 1.7%.
@GidMK I'd be very grateful if you could clarify the above question! Thanks.
I'll have to check with my co-authors, I did not do the calculations for that graph 
Thanks! But I can also write an email to the corresponding authors if that's more convenient.
I am one of the corresponding authors lol
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.