Well, the aim is to estimate the infection-fatality rate (IFR) of #COVID19 using seroprevalence (antibody test) studies
The methodology here is not ideal at first glance
Well, if you want to estimate a number like this from published data you want your search and appraisal methods to be SYSTEMATIC
Hence, systematic review
That's a strange inconsistency
Again, there's no justification for this and it is REALLY WEIRD to exclude government reports (they're doing most of the testing!)
However, there's an issue - the estimates were then 'adjusted'
What's happening here?
Well, there's a problem here. When Ioaniddis calculated IFRs, he did a decent job. However, some of the INCLUDED STUDIES didn't
New Jersey: 0.12%
It seems INCREDIBLY unlikely, at this point, for the IFR to be below 0.1%
This is a HUGE gap to the study
For example, the Gangelt authors posited an IFR of 0.37-.46%, this paper cites 0.28%
This gives us a great opportunity. We can correct the record in real time, and put up a study that actually achieves its aims
Let's hope it happens
It appears that for the Netherlands study, the number provided in this review is roughly 6x lower than the true IFR