Yes, my argument is their inputs are incorrect I can't add five numbers in sequence. But I know which inputs are important. What's what being a social scientist is all about
-
-
I am curious, though. Is this what you would expect of a "Math Titan?"pic.twitter.com/uh7TFRilQD
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @greg_travis @youyanggu
In early 2020 the WHO told us that Covid wasn't airborne. On the basis of that, math minds assumed that suppression would be achieved before even 5% of us were infected.pic.twitter.com/yR3j8TOjJS
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @msabouri @youyanggu
Gregory Travis Retweeted Gregory Travis
Smart people like me, because we studied History instead of getting a Nobel Prize, were saying this in early 2020https://twitter.com/greg_travis/status/1247576425076588546 …
Gregory Travis added,
Gregory Travis @greg_travisReplying to @PezeshkiCharles @RallyOnYou are correct that viral load seems to be a huge factor in if and how badly one gets sick. I believe the main transmission vector is not contact but airborne and most people get sick from breathing in air others breath out. Most people get a low viral load because of that.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @greg_travis @youyanggu
I figured it out in early 2020 too. The problem is those that were also promoting high IFRs were indirectly promoting the narrative that Covid wasn't airborne. High IFRs meant low IRs, something the "it's not really airborne" crowd harped on.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @msabouri @youyanggu
That's simply not true. The ICL/Ferguson model had a mean IFR of 0.9% on March 16th, 2020 Which is EXACTLY what it is (for OECD) today https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-9-impact-of-npis-on-covid-19/ … Ferguson et. al have been shown over and over again now that we have a year behind us to have been remarkably accuratepic.twitter.com/YLl5Vy0Cs4
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @greg_travis @youyanggu
At this point it takes a mountain of mental gymnastics to get to an IFR anywhere close to .9%. Rational people right now are somewhere between .3-.6% for America. Saying .9% means that only 70M Americans got infected. That is half the CDC's current lowest bound estimate.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
JM Pienaar Retweeted JM Pienaar
Using the "math titan's" numbers gets us to .9% IFR. I agree it's a bit high, but he won't budge from that 20% saturation level he anchored on since those Diamond Princess days.https://twitter.com/PienaarJm/status/1398246834548715525?s=20 …
JM Pienaar added,
JM Pienaar @PienaarJmSo it infected 20% of Americans=66M. Killed 591K. IFR = 591K/66M = 0.9% Someone needs to tell Ioannidis@MLevitt_NP2013 falsified his paper and he needs to retract? https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1376467434857586689?s=20 …@GidMK@AtomsksSanakan https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1397383380690481155 …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
@GidMK doesn't know I exist2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Happy to clarify that you do indeed appear to exist 
-
-
"Appear"
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.