Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    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

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    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

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    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

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
      Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq

      I also understand linear regression, and it is still not the issue with taking the mean/median of the last 5 years and using it as your comparator point for 2020 excess mortality

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    2. Teddy Petrou‏ @TedPetrou Feb 16
      Replying to @GidMK @zorinaq

      You understand linear regression, but don't understand how much a single outlier like 2019 can impact the trendline. Did you happen to notice the 13 consecutive years of nearly all negative excess deaths from @zorinaq plot? This is a huge issue.pic.twitter.com/Me4qMvkA5j

      3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
      Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq

      But as you have said, even ignoring the outlier you would still expect a 1-1.5% decrease in mortality. Taking the 2018 deaths and extrapolating forward completely ignoring 2019 still gives you double the excess deaths compared to the mean/median

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
      Replying to @GidMK @TedPetrou @zorinaq

      Ideally, what you'd do is a Bayesian inference that takes into account the uncertainty of both the initial downtrend and the outlier of 2019, which I suspect is what the SCB has done, but even your crude example shows how useless it is to simply use the mean

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    5. Teddy Petrou‏ @TedPetrou Feb 16
      Replying to @GidMK @zorinaq

      I agree that ignoring a possible downward trend in mortality was an oversight on my part. Something like 93-96k sounds about right for excess of 2-5k.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
      Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq

      96k would be ignoring the downtrend tho. By your simple regression model, it should be around 94k, and my guess is a more complex inference would revise that downward somewhat after taking into account the uncertainty of 2019 and previous years

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Teddy Petrou‏ @TedPetrou Feb 16
      Replying to @GidMK @zorinaq

      Im not ignoring it at all. There is large variance here and we don't know if the downtrend would continue. The 5 years of 2014-2018 were relatively flat. Thats why I gave a range. 96k would be at the high end and unlikely.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
      Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq

      I mean, it's a strong trend that has been present for the last 50 years not just in Sweden but across most/all developed nations. 96k requires you to assume that such a trend would not only discontinue but, given the 2019 figures, reverse!

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Teddy Petrou‏ @TedPetrou Feb 16
      Replying to @GidMK @zorinaq

      The trend has been slowing down and its very difficult to extrapolate. There is a probability of increase. Just like life expectancy in the US decreased for men in 2019 (I believe). Strange things happen. This is how most people define ranges -formally it is a confidence interval

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
      Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq

      Actually, that is not the correct definition of a confidence interval. It sounds more like you're trying to create a predictive interval taking into account uncertainty around the predicted decline, except it's very one-sided

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
      Replying to @GidMK @TedPetrou @zorinaq

      If you were to take a realistic predictive interval taking into account the fact that 2019 is *likely* but not *definitely* an outlier, your true result would probably include 96k but also dip down into ~88k or lower

      6:08 PM - 16 Feb 2021
      • 2 Likes
      • Loretta Torrago Marc Bevand
      3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Marco Piani‏ @Marco_Piani Feb 16
          Replying to @GidMK @TedPetrou @zorinaq

          I'd suggert that @TedPetrou validates his method by using it to calculate the expected deaths *of the previous years* (like 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) using his method of considering rates from a suitable but fixed number of years prior, similar to what he did for 2020.

          2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. Marco Piani‏ @Marco_Piani Feb 16
          Replying to @Marco_Piani @GidMK and

          If you think it is a good idea, please suggest it to @TedPetrou as I have been blocked by him, and he will not see my posts. Thanks.

          0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Teddy Petrou‏ @TedPetrou Feb 16
          Replying to @GidMK @zorinaq

          The issue is that you weren't thinking about intervals. Theres no guarantee that Sweden mortality would decline because of historical trend. The rate of decrease has slowed. 2018 mortality rates give you just about 96k deaths. You cannot dismiss this as a possibility.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
          Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq

          In the same vein, you cannot discount the possibility that 2019 was not an anomaly and that the mortality drop was part of a trend, which would mean a death rate of roughly 88k and excess mortality of 10k. Uncertainty cuts both ways

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. Show replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Teddy Petrou‏ @TedPetrou Feb 16
          Replying to @GidMK @zorinaq

          88k deaths would be an elderly decrease of ~12% over a 2 year period. This would be by far the largest 2 year decrease in the last 20 years. 2019 was already the largest decrease in the last 20 years for the elderly. Going back to back would be essentially impossible.

          3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK Feb 16
          Replying to @TedPetrou @zorinaq

          The last time that Sweden saw an increase in mortality of the sort you're proposing WITHOUT COVID between 2019-2020 was I believe 1944. They are both equally implausible, but if you're going to embrace the uncertainty it's ridiculous to pretend it only goes one way

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. Show replies

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info