Fascinating study demonstrating the issues with selection bias in seroprevalence estimates
Using a selected sample of participants, the estimated prevalence of past COVID-19 infection doubled (!) nature.com/articles/s4146…
The study is really interesting. They used an existing representative sample of people aged >30 to estimate the population prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2
They then added a second group. These were people who had not previously signed up to the existing cohort, but were eligible
In Group 1, 0.97% of people had antibodies to the virus
In Group 2, this doubled to 1.94%
Even more interesting, this difference did not disappear even when adjusting for age, sex, or reported past symptoms of COVID-19
The only major difference between the groups? Thinking you'd been exposed to COVID-19 in the past
Two take-homes:
1. Selection bias is a big problem
2. Adjusting for demographics and symptoms may not be adequate to correct for this bias
What this means is that if you recruit people to a seroprevalence study in a biased way (say, by telling them that they can go back to normal life if they get a positive result), you might end up with a massively inflated estimate
This is important in IFR calculations
If we used the representative sample, we get an IFR of ~0.8%
Using the biased sample, it's halved to ~0.4%
Big difference!
Thanks @MikeDeeeeeee for pointing out the research
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.