Disappointed in @UpshotNYT on this story:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/28/upshot/coronavirus-herd-immunity.html

A few key things stand out here. They quote unnamed "experts" to support an assumption that herd immunity requires at least 60% infected (this is major underpinning of the piece), but in reality... 1/?

the possibility for heterogeneity in susceptibility and transmission patterns creates a lot of uncertainty about how much immunity will be enough in different places to slow the spread of COVID. "Experts" would be aware of this! There's also...

2/? https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1258827506930667523

straight out misrepresentation of data. E.g., they present antibody results for Stockholm alongside other cities like London, Madrid, and NYC, but report results not for Stockholm itself but for Stockholm county. (Imagine attributing NY state results to NYC!)

They warn... 3/?

that antibody studies may overestimate immunity, but don't acknowledge ways in which they underestimate it (e.g., results reported for the end of April correspond to antibodies from infection by early April).

It is interesting that they had so many experts on the record... 4/?

giving quotes about various aspects of the story, but had to make the 60% threshold anonymously sourced. Maybe the experts didn't give them the answer they wanted, but they went with it anyways? 5/5