Some quick thoughts on the paper:
*The methodology is not adequately explained. Three months for a one-time cross-sectional survey will not provide the point estimates. Assuming 1675 samples mean 1675 individuals, one sample for each individual was counted. 1/7
Trend analysis & gender stratification of the data would have been much helpful. The three populations had different sample collections strategies.
*The majority were pharma workers who are considered to be at high risk because of their repeated exposure to the healthcare 2/7
Sep 14, 2020 • 11 tweets • 2 min read
Some quick thoughts. The study presented some much needed & interesting findings. However, a well representative sample selection could have provided a more accurate account of the disease burden in the Country. 1/11
The gender stratification indicated that both men and women had equal prevalence, which is contradicting the surveillance (PCR) data that indicates that men are 2X more at risk. 2/11
Jul 19, 2020 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Few additional thoughts:
“……. track contacts by linking large databases (global positioning system, credit card transactions, and closed-circuit television).”
Not sure if they were able to track the contacts of 10-19 years of age through credit card transactions, 1/5
probably one of the reasons for low number of contacts with this age group.
Would be interesting to see how the online credit card transactions were differentiated from in-person transactions, assuming during the period of the study, 2/5
