1/4 - I think it would be helpful if I cleared up some confusion that has emerged in recent days. Some have interpreted my evidence to a UK parliamentary committee as indicating we have substantially revised our assessments of the potential mortality impact of COVID-19.
-
-
4/4 - Without those controls, our assessment remains that the UK would see the scale of deaths reported in our study (namely, up to approximately 500 thousand).
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The "flatten the curve" was spreading the same numbers over a longer time frame by mitigation measures. The new assessments show a drop in the overall numbers, by mitigation measures. Which is the more accurate framework?
-
Mitigation flattened the curve, suppression reduces the R number, resulting in less casespic.twitter.com/gYPAssgjqU
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Did you bother to read the actual study?
- Show replies
-
-
-
-
That's why the UK aren't following the mitigation pathway, rather the suppression pathwaypic.twitter.com/BcoPYBViBa
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The answer he is most likely seeing the data from the first antibody tests and realizing the denominator is off by a factor of 100 or more. That is where he is getting 20,000 deaths. Oxford was much more right than him.
Thanks. 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.