I've written several twitter threads on Prof Ioannidis' papers on IFR, recently herehttps://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344?s=20 …
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
Now, the fourth seroprevalence sample was not published until after Prof Ioannidis' paper came out, but the point here is that the three samples included in the paper are not sufficient to infer infections in the population
All 3 estimates of the IFR that use biased sampling and survey methodology are half the more rigorous data. This inclusion of inappropriate estimates is repeated numerous times in the IFR review @AtomsksSanakan covered this in detailhttps://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1341183815176364038?s=20 …
Anyway, I always think it's quite telling when people choose to attack the qualifications of their critics rather than discussing the critique itself
Apologies! Another sample has been recently published that I was not aware of. This is also a random citywide estimate that implies an IFR of 0.5% So a reasonable range might be 0.5-0.8% for the IFR of Wuhanhttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00238-5/fulltext …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.