I guess we'll all have to wait and see - but it's important to remember that a shift in probability outcomes certainly changes risk calculus, favors initial precaution. But it doesnt mean everything has changed, and analysis could be noisy in the beginning. End subtweet.
-
-
The CDC estimated unobserved cases being something like 2.5 to 3 recorded cases last year. I think it makes sense the factor is higher now given increased transmission and vaccinations.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yup. I think back to CDC (publicly) punting on following breakthroughs. It made sense with data at time and resources. But wish we set up some pilots. Now I worry about overcorrection as you say because we dont have a handle on the denominator. All those small cuts.
-
Excellent point. They’re making this decision on low quality data since they didn’t bother collecting their own.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also we stopped tracking breakthroughs unless hospitalized why? I was remembering the May conversations.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1394722401649299462 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Similar bias for alpha and delta cases in passive surveillance so difference in avg viral load is informative. Unless people more aware of breakthroughs with delta so get tested if symptomatic. My intuition is this is actually bad news about delta, even adjusting for issues.
-
No they changed surveillance in May just as Delta was getting going so not comparable from what I can tell. That said, no doubt Delta is bad news. That’s been clear since May.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.