2/n I'm basing my opinion here on seroprevalence data. This is basically data looking at who has antibodies to COVID-19, and therefore who was previously infected We reviewed 100s of studies for our IFR paper. What did they show?https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10654-020-00698-1 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/n Well, not all of them looked at the age-stratified rates of infection But of those that DID, an interesting pattern emerges
Show this thread -
3.5/n (Note: this is excluding low-quality seroprevalence estimates with selection bias issues. These cannot be trusted to give us an accurate estimation of infection rates by age)
Show this thread -
4/n For example, take REACT-2, a massive antibody prevalence study from the UK They found substantially FEWER people had been infected in older age groups than younger onespic.twitter.com/rdCAaRHCao
Show this thread -
5/n If you look at our supplementary appendix, where we give age-stratified prevalence figures for every study, you see a similar pattern in many places...pic.twitter.com/ppdzu4BzaG
Show this thread -
6/n ...with some VERY notable exceptions! But remember, these are seroprevalence estimates taken in Italy and Spain in April 2020pic.twitter.com/Jsvk0mp7XZ
Show this thread -
7/n Indeed, places that were hit really early on seem to show the opposite pattern Here are the results for the small Italian town Castiglione D'Adda. Older people were MORE likely to be infectedpic.twitter.com/U0nQlw5R88
Show this thread -
8/n But that's the thing - in the very early epidemic, people did not protect the elderly However, what the evidence appears to show is that this was a relatively short-lived phenomenon
Show this thread -
9/n While this is somewhat speculative (mostly my opinion) I think it's fair to say that after the tragedy of the early first wave, most places implemented policies that substantially reduced the number of COVID-19 infections of elderly people
Show this thread -
10/n All over the world, people took more care with their grandparents, aged care centres curtailed visitation, and generally we were all more aware of the danger to the elderly
Show this thread -
11/n This is seen in the numbers - many places that were hit even a few weeks later than Italy/Spain had lower infection rates in older people than younger
Show this thread -
12/n Even within countries, I suspect there may have been an impact For example, New York had ~some~ reduction in infection in older people, but Utah had a big reductionpic.twitter.com/oV4hUOODoz
Show this thread -
13/n Like I said, all of this is pretty speculative. It's hard to say how much we managed to protect older people because often the seroprevalence data is not very good
Show this thread -
14/n That being said, when we look at good quality seroprevalence estimates, in almost all cases after the initial surge it looks like we did in fact protect elderly people (at least to some extent)
Show this thread -
15/n Yes, elderly people have died more from COVID-19, but that's an obvious consequence of the age-stratified IFR. If lots of people get infected, lots of old people will be infected by default
Show this thread -
16/n I think it is reasonable to say that in most places we HAVE protected the elderly to a great degree, and we have still suffered the consequences when the pandemic got out of control
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.