Share this page!

Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
Twitter logo
30 Jun, 4 tweets, 4 min read
PaperOfTheDay

Contrarians should admit they were wrong about IFR in Sweden





"Multianalyte serology in home-sampled blood enables an unbiased assessment of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2"
nature.com/articles/s4146…
Context:

Public Health Agency of Sweden:
"Globally, it is estimated that 0.5–1 percent of those who are infected with COVID-19 die"
web.archive.org/web/2020103000…

"point estimate of the IFR [in Stockholm] is 0.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4–1.1%"
folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/…
Stockholm:
"peak [IFR] was 1.34% (95%CI[0.90, 1.89]), and would extrapolate to 0.61% (95%CI[0.41, 0.86] [...])"
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

Sweden:
"IFR of 0.74 %"
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

Sweden:
"estimated to 0.40; 0.40; 0.37; 0.28 and 0.27"
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
- Ferguson et al.'s Europe IFRs were largely right.
- COVID-19 killed >0.10% of Sweden's population without getting herd immunity.

Contrarians/deniers who said otherwise should apologize (ex: Nic Lewis).




judithcurry.com/2020/05/10/why…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Atomsk's Sanakan

Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AtomsksSanakan

Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
29 Jun
1/G

On other threads I criticized estimates of COVID-19's fatality. Here I'll highlight the best estimate I've seen:
0.9% from Neil Ferguson's team at Imperial College.

It's being falsely criticized again.
(h/t @thereal_truther)



tabletmag.com/sections/news/… Image
2/G

Ideologues often criticize the 0.9% estimate in order to downplay the severity of COVID-19 + evade policies they dislike. John Ioannidis resorted to that

judithcurry.com/2020/04/01/imp…
cato.org/blog/how-one-m…
freopp.org/jay-bhattachar…
reason.com/2021/06/22/the…

Image
3/G

In March 2020, Ferguson's team applied work from Verity et al. on China, to Great Britain (GB).

That led to an estimate of 0.9% of SARS-CoV-2-infected people dying of COVID-19; i.e. 0.9% infection fatality rate (IFR).



spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/1004… Image
Read 13 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
28 Jun
1/U

Sometimes John Ioannidis just makes me laugh. 😀

In the slide below, Ioannidis discusses age-specific IFR (infection fatality rate), i.e. what proportion of SARS-CoV-2-infected people die of the disease COVID-19 at various ages.

22:23 - 23:18:
2/U

Here's the work Ioannidis is likely referring to:

Axfors (Ioannidis is the lead author)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Levin (from @GidMK + @BillHanage)
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

O'Driscoll
nature.com/articles/s4158…

CDC
web.archive.org/web/2021032419…

3/U

Ioannidis says his Axfors estimates mostly agree with O'Driscoll:

from 23:04


Yet experts noted for around year that his Axfors estimate is a low outlier.

So what's going on here?

publichealthontario.ca/-/media/docume…
Read 12 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
28 Jun
1/T

This thread will look at some statements in @zeynep's NYT article on lab leak conspiracism.

Some preliminary notes first.






nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opi…
[archive.is/hFqmR]
2/T

I + others argued with lab conspiracists for over a year. We saw their arguments + addressed them in detail; that's how we know they're nonsense.

I'll thus often link to threads that explain points in detail, so I don't have to rehash it all here.

3/T

You often need serology (i.e. antibody) studies to tell who's been infected, since many infections are missed otherwise.

Those studies show more prior infections with SARS-like viruses.




archive.is/hFqmR#selectio…
Read 21 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
27 Jun
1/F

SARS-CoV-2 lab conspiracy theorists are again misrepresenting scientific fields they have not bothered to try to understand.

This time they're applying their paranoid distortions to immunology. So that deserves a thread.



Image
2/F

When SARS-CoV-2 infects a person, the person's immune system increases production of proteins known as antibodies that bind to SARS-CoV-2.

So if SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the WIV by infecting staff, then that would show up in antibody tests.

Yet...
who.int/docs/default-s… Image
3/F

Conspiracists don't like that result, so they abuse an antibody study I discussed awhile back.

That study estimates ~4% of Wuhan had increased antibody levels; i.e. ~4% seroprevalence, so ~4% of people previously infected.



thelancet.com/journals/lanwp… Image
Read 11 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
8 Jun
1/Z

An annoying thing about many SARS-CoV-2 lab conspiracists is they don't learn a da*n thing, no matter how much it's explained to them.

Example from WSJ, Steven Quay, + Richard Muller:

"The science suggests a Wuhan lab leak"
wsj.com/articles/the-s…
archive.is/MfmLd Image
2/Z

Quay + Muller's 'codon usage' point is not new.

Ex: Bret Weinstein was making the point months ago, and Nicholas Wade did more recently.

It's a favorite talking among the conspiracy theorists.



https://t.co/jGJkNUBui0

thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-or… Image
3/Z

A crucial concept to understand here is copy-choice error.

See below:

virological.org/t/tackling-rum…
virological.org/t/the-sarbecov…
virological.org/t/tackling-rum…

link.springer.com/article/10.100…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…


Image
Read 14 tweets
Atomsk's Sanakan Profile picture
23 May
1/V

Quick thread on another reason why I don't trust Vinay Prasad.



I'm an immunologist, and one of the main reasons I first came to Twitter 4 years ago was to debunk vaccine denialism.



2/V

To be blunt, I know more about immunology and vaccines than Prasad. This is not his field of expertise.

The study he cites does not support the claim he made:
science.sciencemag.org/content/371/65…

And the John Snow memo is pretty good:



3/V

There were good reasons for thinking COVID-19 vaccines would induce a better immune response than infection.

I was not the first to point this out (h/t @drjenndowd).




Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AtomsksSanakan has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AtomsksSanakan!

Read all threads by @AtomsksSanakan

:(