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 …
-
-
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.