This article on #coronavirus case fatality rate is spot on. Thanks for moving beyond a soundbite @juliaoftorontohttps://twitter.com/juliaoftoronto/status/1235601474618523651 …
-
-
Als antwoord op @amymaxmen @juliaoftoronto
Unfortunately the article calculates CFRs wrong as it does not take into consideration epidemic growth (one main reason S. Korea is so low - and why the displayed graph shows lower CFRs over time). This mistake leads to very wrong numbers. More here:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/health/coronavirus-deaths-rates.html …
1 antwoord 2 retweets 10 vind-ik-leuks -
We all want these numbers to be low, but trying to dispel one flawed estimate by providing several additional flawed estimates (to lower the numbers) is problematic. Fact is - we unfortunately don't have good estimates at the moment and it'll take time before we do.
3 antwoorden 6 retweets 13 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @K_G_Andersen @juliaoftoronto
Thanks. I like the piece because it clarified that this number isnt static. My layperson read of is that this rate is unknown, and here are some illustrations of how it can vary. I’ve just read so many claims & blame-games that this piece read like a straight-forward explanation.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks
Agreed - many issues. And yes, it reads like a straightforward explanation, but the problem is that it makes many of the same mistakes it's trying to solve. I suggest reading the NYT article instead and also Adam's tweets on this.
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.