1. There was massive media coverage over the recent study (published in The Lancet) claiming the Pfizer vaccine was "95% effective". But there are issues with the study and its analysis which mean the claim is exaggerated. See: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/import…
2. The analysis fails to adjust the vaccine effectiveness calculation for different testing protocols for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. For example, asymptomatic unvaccinated people continued to be routinely tested while asymptomatic unvaccinated people were not.
3. The majority of the unvaccinated who PCR tested positive (and hence were classified as a 'case') were asymptomatic.
meant to say "while asymptomatic vaccinated people were not."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. More on the rarity of asymptomatics with #Covid-19. In the latest rounds of Covid testing of Premier league footballers and staff, there were 0 positives among 2,787 tested:
2. There have consistently been very low numbers of positives among footballers and staff, even though:
a) these are among the only people who have not had to obey social distancing rules;
b) they travel all over the country and Europe; and
c) they cover the whole of the UK.
3. Can anybody shed light on whether confirmatory testing of positive results is done for the footballers? I understand their samples are tested by The Doctors Laboratory, a private clinic (which has incidentally been accused of health and safety breaches tinyurl.com/44p468e7)
View of today’s anti-lockdown march from Waterloo Bridge. This is 45 minutes after the front and I reckon at least an hour still to come.
Of course it was a lot more than anti-lockdown. The unifying theme was opposition to the Government using Covid to justify ever increasing infringements of civil liberties.
1. Note the crucial difference in wording between eye-catching graphic which says "1 in 480 ...with COVID-19" and the simple text which says "1 in 480 ...tested positive for COVID-19". The graphic is the one which is the lie.
2. The most important lesson from our work analysing the Cambridge data is that, with a false positive rate of around 0.35% for asymptomatics, most asymptomatics who test positive do NOT have COVID-19.
3. In the period we looked at there were 43 positives from the pooled PCR testing, of which 36 were found to be false positives after a confirmatory tests.
1. Remember the May 2020 headline story "Black people are 4 times more likely to die from Covid-19"? Our article on why these death risk statistics were misleading has been published today in the Royal Statistical Society's Significance Magazine significancemagazine.com/701
3. What is clear is that the original figures, which were so widely seized on by the media, were exaggerated - as we originally said. And even the current figures are also likely to be exaggerated by failure to account for demographic changes since the 2011 census.
1. This is a thread about the barriers to academic publication for work that challenges the ‘official narrative’ on Covid-19 such as our work challenging the 'official' data about asymptomatics.
2. Our paper about the “1 in 3 people with Covid-19 have no symptoms” claim has already had 4093 reads since posted on researchgate on Friday, and 337,255 impressions to the tweet about it. The video summary has been watched by 7,530 people in 2 days. doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
3. But, this was the response we got less than 24 hours after we submitted it to the BMJ: