One example of this is the IFR for Wuhan. There are 4 estimates of seroprevalence that you could use to calculated an IFR for Wuhan in early 2020 In the paper, 3 of them are usedpic.twitter.com/02a4XQVtTA
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
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 …
With this paper, Ioannidis demonstrates in stark fashion everything that is wrong with peer review.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.