Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
NateSilver538's profile
Nate Silver
Nate Silver
Nate Silver
Verified account
@NateSilver538

Tweets

Nate SilverVerified account

@NateSilver538

Founder, EIC @FiveThirtyEight. Author, The Signal and the Noise (http://amzn.to/QdyFYV ). Sports/politics/food geek. Not a virologist.

New York
fivethirtyeight.com
Joined August 2008

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    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

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 2

      Nate Silver Retweeted Apoorva Mandavilli

      The sample size is this non peer reviewed study is 79 vaccinated people (corrected, misread as 83 before) and completely lacks the statistical power to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinanted people.https://twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1422375380158193678 …

      Nate Silver added,

      Apoorva MandavilliVerified account @apoorva_nyc
      More data in support of viral loads being the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people, this time from Wisconsin: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1?%253fcollection= …
      Show this thread
      74 replies 388 retweets 3,181 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 2

      Also as in the Provincetown study it's a convenience sample, meaning people who chose to be tested, and not a random sample of all infections. That likely biases the sample toward more severe infections since people with more severe symptoms are more likely to seek out testing.

      20 replies 74 retweets 1,321 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 3

      Another big statistical issue in these studies (at least the Wisconsin one) is that they have truncated samples. People with high Ct values (higher Ct = harder to find virus) are eliminated from the comparison because it's not clear they can be considered "infected".pic.twitter.com/i0EPQjf9Ni

      8 replies 48 retweets 691 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 3

      If one way that breakthrough infections manifest themselves is thru very low amounts of virus in some people, but then you eliminate people with very low viral loads from your comparison, you're sort of begging the question. Need to be careful in cases like these.

      16 replies 55 retweets 1,076 likes
      Show this thread
      Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 4

      Here is a study from the UK with a MUCH larger sample size (~50K vaccinated people) that indeed finds vaccinated people carry lower viral loads. https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/90800/2/react1_r13_final_preprint_final.pdf …pic.twitter.com/kNI6YUJsSa

      4:13 AM - 4 Aug 2021
      • 453 Retweets
      • 1,727 Likes
      • HawkeyeInDallas Eric Kay 📙No Lack of Sunshine📙 Jenny Fitz Mark Kelly Fan 🌐 Kyle Immel John Wheeler Andrew Hammel Lenoy Avidan avareltech
      42 replies 453 retweets 1,727 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 4

          The study also avoids some of the selection bias issues discussed since it relies on a random sample, not just a convenience sample of those who happened to get tested because they had symptoms. It is much more rigorous than e.g. the Wisconsin or Provincetown Bear Weak studies.pic.twitter.com/4IQjA8qAxh

          10 replies 43 retweets 443 likes
          Show this thread
        3. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 4

          To throw a gauntlet down, a pretty simple test of whether news outlets like @nytimes actually care about getting the science right is if they report on this more rigorous UK study with >= fervor to the Provincetown study.

          39 replies 161 retweets 1,282 likes
          Show this thread
        4. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 4

          Seen discussion of the sample size in the UK study and it's worth pointing out that (although the overall sample size is very large) the number of *positives* is ~similar to the other studies. Note, however, that they do find a statistically significant result (p-value = 0.01).pic.twitter.com/sr0jNndRj3

          13 replies 18 retweets 258 likes
          Show this thread
        5. Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 Aug 4

          And, again, this reflects a random sample of the entire UK population, which is >> more robust than a self-selected sample. The UK has done great work with large random samples like these; see also their work on Long COVID below, for instance. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1july2021 …

          19 replies 23 retweets 357 likes
          Show this thread
        6. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Kevin Doyle  🍅‏ @kevin_doyle Aug 4
          Replying to @NateSilver538

          Yeah but Nate, you aren’t qualified to read this study so it’s inadmissible.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Shrödinger's Dad‏ @ruidh Aug 4
          Replying to @kevin_doyle

          Anyone with statistical training is qualified to read the study. A p value of 0.61 is pitiful whether it's epidemiology or some other area of study. The statistics are the same. This is true also for the methodology critiques.

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. Show replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Chao Pup -  🦉 The Owl House  🦉 -  💙NHS 💙‏ @chaoaretasty Aug 4
          Replying to @NateSilver538

          @sailorrooscout have you seen this study? Any thoughts and key results from your perspective?

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. Chise  🧬 🧫 🦠 💉‏ @sailorrooscout Aug 4
          Replying to @chaoaretasty @NateSilver538

          Chise  🧬 🧫 🦠 💉 Retweeted Chise  🧬 🧫 🦠 💉

          Yes! Seehttps://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1422895657279447043?s=21 …

          Chise  🧬 🧫 🦠 💉 added,

          Chise  🧬 🧫 🦠 💉 @sailorrooscout
          New research out of ICL has found fully vaccinated individuals are 3x LESS likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated individuals AND are LESS likely to pass the virus on to others, due to having a smaller viral load on average and therefore shedding LESS virus.
          Show this thread
          0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. F_G‏ @g_farzad Aug 4
          Replying to @NateSilver538

          @JacobGudiol , intressant studie som än en gång visar skillnaderna mellan vaccinerad och ovaccinerad.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. New conversation
        2. Scott Cohen‏ @cohensa Aug 4
          Replying to @NateSilver538

          Nate, check out Table 7 again. They only have 28 positives from unvaccinated vs 145 positive from vaccinated. Haven’t done the math but it might even be less powered than the Wisconsin study (if not similar).pic.twitter.com/4QDMMC3Pq1

          5 replies 0 retweets 12 likes
        3. Tim Kelly‏ @TimKell91827640 Aug 4
          Replying to @cohensa @NateSilver538

          But it’s a far more representative sample…

          2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. Show replies

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info