Thread by @MaxCRoser

This was terrible reporting by the FT.

And their clickbait headline is worse since the article is behind a paywall.

It essentially takes an assumption of a research paper and suggested that it was what the research concluded.

Here is the actual research dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9…

The FT subtitle said "New epidemiological model suggests the vast majority of people suffer little or no illness."

No, that's not what this research suggests. Here is the first sentence from the results section of the paper.

Fortunately for all of us there are great researchers that take time out of their busy days to correct the claims of poor reporting.

Here is a thread by prof of biostatistics, @nataliexdean:

https://twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1242557652217090058

And here by biology prof @CT_Bergstrom:

https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1242611599405277184

The actual conclusion of this paper is that we need more testing.

These researchers say what everyone agrees with, we do not know much right now.
Very different realities are consistent with the very poor data.

Here is the research article, it's short:
dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9…

I am angry at this because it costs us all so much energy.

I' read the FT 2 days ago and have been thinking about it since.
I couldn't make sense of it and this morning read the original paper.

Only then I realised it was click-bait.
No researcher is 'suggesting' that at all.