[lex24]

and, in fact, an argument can be made that over time the IFR has been a bit less scary).
BC

Do you think the IFRs cited in this document are accurate?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20101253v3

This Twitter thread suggests no.  I haven't read the paper myself (and I'm not going to.  One episode of near fraud is enough for an author to get a permanent ban from me).

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AVG_Joseph96/status/1283234509639618560[/tweet]

I believe cdc is saying that ifr is 0.65% now.  I'd bet that's closer to correct than 0.3.

Here's another Twitter thread with more criticisms. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1283232023402868737?s=19[/tweet]

What would we do without twitter threads.......These twitter folks certainly have better credentials than Ioannidis : https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

Particularly Gideon M-K. One day he may just get that PHD from the Univ of Wollongong. Until then he can write about how Red Bull’s are actually good for us......

[lex24]

and, in fact, an argument can be made that over time the IFR has been a bit less scary).
BC

Do you think the IFRs cited in this document are accurate?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20101253v3

This Twitter thread suggests no.  I haven't read the paper myself (and I'm not going to.  One episode of near fraud is enough for an author to get a permanent ban from me).

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AVG_Joseph96/status/1283234509639618560[/tweet]

I believe cdc is saying that ifr is 0.65% now.  I'd bet that's closer to correct than 0.3.

Here's another Twitter thread with more criticisms. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1283232023402868737?s=19[/tweet]

What would we do without twitter threads.......These twitter folks certainly have better credentials than Ioannidis : https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis

Particularly Gideon M-K. One day he may just get that PHD from the Univ of Wollongong. Until then he can write about how Red Bull’s are actually good for us......