Throughout the pandemic, there has been an apparent contradiction - low-income places appear to have lower death rates from COVID-19 than higher-income areas
This makes no sense on the face of it
So, we looked at the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in every place that we could find, using antibodies to estimate the number of infections in each area and the number of registered deaths as our numerator
The results?
Firstly, developing countries had much higher seroprevalence than higher-income areas. They had more infections by a long way after the first wave than most developed countries
Worst still, they had relatively uniform seroprevalence across ages. In high-income places, edlerly people were mostly protected from infection, but in developing countries this does not seem to have happened
What about IFR?
Well, developing countries had a much higher IFR than high-income areas. This graph and table show this issue - at age 20 the risk of dying in a developing country is nearly triple as high as in a higher-income place
Now, this was not true across the board. There are some places with extremely low IFRs - an example is some locations in India
How do we explain this?
The TL:DR is actually pretty simple. If you look at death reporting systems in these places FROM BEFORE THE PANDEMIC there were very serious reporting issues, with some of these places actually certifying less than 30% of deaths properly!
If you compare places that had adequate death reporting with those that didn't the IFR is TEN TIMES HIGHER
TEN. TIMES. HIGHER.
So what we can say with a great deal of certainty is that the risk of COVID-19 is much higher in developing countries than in high-income countries for similar ages
For those locations where the death rate is very low, by far the most likely explanation is that they are simply not recording deaths very well. We knew this was an issue before the pandemic, so it's not surprising!
Ultimately, the message from this work is simple - COVID-19 has been devastating to low-income places, and we must act urgently to improve vaccine equity across the globe
It turns out that the apparent contradiction I mentioned above is explained in two basic ways:
1. Developing countries are often relatively young 2. Deaths often go unreported (this includes non-COVID deaths too)
It's also worth noting that the higher IFR in developing nations is despite these areas having few nursing homes. Indeed, nursing homes seem to be quite PROTECTIVE for COVID-19 because living in the community makes it harder to prevent elderly people from getting infected
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is amazing how many people mischaracterize "extremely likely" as "the only possible answer"
No, this does not mean that a lab leak is totally impossible
That being said, the appearance of very closely-related coronaviruses in non-lab settings obviously makes a natural origin quite likely, especially as there are no more closely related viruses in labs 🤷♂️
I cannot believe the question was asked, and the response is even more absurd
No, the pandemic is not a "social construct" what utter garbage
Even the explanation of why the pandemic is "socially constructed" is total nonsense. That we may have had a different response without technology does not mean that what we are doing now is "constructed" in a philosophical sense
I mean, if the pandemic had happened 3 decades ago it's almost certain that the death toll would be FAR higher, so we might have actually had a MORE intensive regulatory response
The basic issue is that science works on trust. We assume that no one would ever fake a study, because it's ethically and morally indefensible, and work with that
Which makes it very easy for people to fake studies
However, people generally aren't very good at faking things. There are dozens of very simple checks you can run on data to see if it's real
It is demonstrably false to claim that intubation has led to more deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, but this has not stopped Professor Ioannidis making the claim repeatedly
I also find the persistent myth that Prof Ioannidis promotes that death certification has lead to more Covid-19 deaths rather odd. I cannot find any basis for this in the literature he cites
For example, in this recent paper he makes the same claim and cites two papers. One is simply a guide to death certification, and not really an assessment of errors
2/10 The claim is pretty simple - Uttar Pradesh uses ivermectin a lot, therefore it's doing well on COVID as opposed to places that don't use ivermectin. Just look at the graphics!
3/10 This is quite transparent nonsense and it's easy to see why. Firstly, Uttar Pradesh officially incorporated ivermectin into treatment protocols and started using it in hospitals in Aug/Sept 2020
Today I decided to look at some of the terrible observational studies on ivermectin that I've mostly ignored, and wow
So far, one with Cohen's d of 2, another with d of 2.9
These are just...gibberish
In one study, every single person in the ivermectin group got better immediately, and every person in the control got much, much worse. In another, 100% of the ivermectin group stayed in hospital for a shorter amount of time than the control
These studies are just so wildly implausible that it's hard to understand why no one has raised these questions before. Either a single ivermectin pill entirely cures COVID or there's something fishy there