The most common reaction to this tweet was “why to assume such low IFR”? As most pandemic parameters, IFR varies a lot geographically.
I (approximately) used OC-specific IFR estimated using OC seroprevalence study: 0.28%. See Supplement 2, Section 3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82662-x …https://twitter.com/vnminin/status/1375247442665369601 …
-
-
Replying to @vnminin
Atomsk's Sanakan Retweeted Atomsk's Sanakan
Atomsk's Sanakan added,
Atomsk's Sanakan @AtomsksSanakanReplying to @vnmininRe: "Assuming infection-to-fatality ratio of 0.25%" There's a good chance that IFR for Orange County is wrong, due to a bias in its sample frame. That sample frame produced a mathematically impossible IFR in Los Angeles County. https://twitter.com/vnminin/status/1376311019039952896 … https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1377282062135201794 …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AtomsksSanakan
Just noticed this,
@AtomsksSanakan. Thanks for pointing me to your thread. I am curious what@dm_parker thinks about this. Also, great to see that Riverside also did a seroprevalence study. Didn't know this1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vnminin @AtomsksSanakan
Can't speak to the LA study (or Riverside one) but if anything, I'd guess that our estimate of seroprevalence could have been an under-estimate, which would then make the IFR even lower. But remember, at that time we had relatively few COVID-19 deaths at that time. 1/n
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
I see a reference to the LA study being impossible since 0.22% of LA pop died from COVID-19, but at what time had 0.22% of the LA pop died from COVID-19? LA did their study even before ours. 2/n
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Doesn't mean that I'm supportive of Ionnidis' COVID work, but OC did not see the kind of mortality that other places (New York, etc.) experienced. And importantly, IFR changes quite a bit over time. Our study (and LAs) was very early in our local epidemic 3/n
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
My comment about our study potentially being an underestimate is because LRW contacted folks by mobile phone and asked that they bring a QR code (recvd. by email) to the study site. Folks w/out mobile phone or email *might* have even higher seroprev. Just a hunch
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
This question has been plaguing me for ages - I suspect early on in the pandemic (particularly during lockdown) it's really hard to know what impact mobile phone/email usage had, because people were moving in really non-traditional ways
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.