Oh man, I remember this one. There was a study from a single clinic in one ward in Tokyo that did not correct for specificity. If you assumed that the uncorrected serology estimate of this one clinic was representative of the entire city of Tokyo, you got an IFR of 0.02%https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1423043538103803904 …
-
Show this thread
-
About a month later, the govt of Japan did an official serological study that found the prevalence was about 40x lower than this study implied, using a large representative sample, which implied an IFR of about 0.8%
2 replies 2 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Apologies, I'm getting my serology studies confused. The 0.04% estimate is from the Tokyo study, the 0.02% estimate here is from a similar study conducted in Kobe City at a single hospital with no correction for specificitypic.twitter.com/FC1i1aMmgM
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
Worth noting as always - this is not a criticism of the research, because these authors were very upfront about the limitations of their work. They even said that the confidence interval for these estimates was very wide because the sens/spec of the serological test was unknown
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
Interestingly, a recent third-party evaluation of the serological test used indicates that it has a specificity of 98 (94-100)%, which means it's possible all positives in the sample were false positives and the true prevalence was 0% (increasing the IFR substantially)
1 reply 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread
They used the Kurabo rapid antibody test, which was evaluated here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7959261/ …
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.